[BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) - page 32.

Flashman

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Hodl!

Quote from: Flashman on April 30, 2014, 07:29:33 PM

Fuckup rate on the part of exchanges, trading platforms, and bitcoin financials is AT LEAST 10-20% therefore I flat out refuse to provide personal info that could be used for fraudulent purposes in the tens of thousands of dollars range with only hundreds at stake.

Quote from: ryepdx on May 10, 2014, 03:50:51 PM

Quote from: _mr_e on May 10, 2014, 03:36:26 PM

So why are you beating around the bush when you have been asked numerous times now.. What will happen to those of us who own shares but refuse to fill out the paperwork? Why do you keep dodging this very legitimate questions?

I second this. I'm very reluctant to hand over that much information to a website I honestly hadn't heard much about until now. Is there any way I can perhaps liquidate my shares without giving a party I don't trust enough personal data to really screw me over if they prove malicious or incompetent?

Annnd as if to triple underline these concerns and write them in 100ft high neon letters, I just started getting cryptocurrency specific spam, at an email address I use very sparingly for bitcoin stuff. Somebody I trusted just fucked up, sold, distributed or lost control of my info. I hope it's one of the ones that only needed an email address.

ryepdx

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: _mr_e on May 10, 2014, 03:36:26 PM

So why are you beating around the bush when you have been asked numerous times now.. What will happen to those of us who own shares but refuse to fill out the paperwork? Why do you keep dodging this very legitimate questions?

I second this. I'm very reluctant to hand over that much information to a website I honestly hadn't heard much about until now. Is there any way I can perhaps liquidate my shares without giving a party I don't trust enough personal data to really screw me over if they prove malicious or incompetent?

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Quote from: will on May 10, 2014, 03:31:02 PM

Quote from: dropt on May 10, 2014, 02:41:51 AM

Will, since you responded to one part of my post but conveniently ignored the other: Again, why are you attempting to subject us to Hong Kong regulation when Icedrill is a subsidiary of a British Virgin Isle company? Further, who is "legal" and what is their contact information?

DigiMex is a BVI company, domiciled in Hong Kong.

I ignored (yeah, sure, I admit it was convenient) your 1st question because is was loaded: imprecise. I concede that I chose not to answer it because of that. Did you want me to answer the "subjected to (probably construed as "forced into)"" or "Hong Kong regulation" (financial/legal/communication network and implications in the sovereignty of HK itself). As before, please do me the professional courtesy to state your questions precisely and without unambiguity. For example, the way I get the answers (that I want/need) in business. is to not beat around the bush if/when I Want Something. Just be straight up, if you want as question asked, ask it. If you want to follow some agenda, then we can talk about it as long you don't waste my time (or yours).

Professional communication has a clear goal. Yours is improving, and I of all people, appreciate that. Thank you dropt. We'll need your (unequivocally voiced) skepticism in the coming days.

TL;DR: Just ask, up straight.

Will

So why are you beating around the bush when you have been asked numerous times now.. What will happen to those of us who own shares but refuse to fill out the paperwork? Why do you keep dodging this very legitimate questions?

will

full member

Activity: 179

Merit: 100

Quote from: dropt on May 10, 2014, 02:41:51 AM

Will, since you responded to one part of my post but conveniently ignored the other: Again, why are you attempting to subject us to Hong Kong regulation when Icedrill is a subsidiary of a British Virgin Isle company? Further, who is "legal" and what is their contact information?

DigiMex is a BVI company, domiciled in Hong Kong.

I ignored (yeah, sure, I admit it was convenient) your 1st question because it was loaded: imprecise. I concede that I chose not to answer it because of that. Did you want me to answer the "subjected to (probably construed as "forced into") or "Hong Kong regulation" (financial/legal/communication network and implications in the sovereignty of HK itself). As before, please do me the professional courtesy to state your questions precisely and without ambiguity. For example, the way I get the answers (that I want/need) in business is to not beat around the bush if/when I Want Something. Just be straight up, if you want a question answered, ask it. If you want to follow some agenda, then we can talk about it as long you don't waste my time (or yours).

Professional communication has a clear goal. Yours is improving, and I of all people, appreciate that. Thank you dropt. We'll need your (unequivocally voiced) skepticism in the coming days.

TL;DR: Just ask, up straight.

Will

dropt

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hksfc on May 09, 2014, 09:16:18 AM

Quote from: will on May 06, 2014, 08:39:56 AM

Some of the CryptoMex members are in direct communication with the SFC (Hong Kong regulator) regarding CryptoMex.io and have been for a while now.

It is an offence under section 103 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance ("SFO") to issue an advertisement, invitation or document which is or contains an invitation to the Hong Kong public to invest in collective investment schemes ("CIS") unless the issue is authorised by the SFC or an exemption applies.

Interesting.

...

Will, since you responded to one part of my post but conveniently ignored the other: Again, why are you attempting to subject us to Hong Kong regulation when Icedrill is a subsidiary of a British Virgin Isle company? Further, who is "legal" and what is their contact information?

raskul

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: hksfc on May 09, 2014, 09:16:18 AM

Quote from: will on May 06, 2014, 08:39:56 AM

Some of the CryptoMex members are in direct communication with the SFC (Hong Kong regulator) regarding CryptoMex.io and have been for a while now.

It is an offence under section 103 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance ("SFO") to issue an advertisement, invitation or document which is or contains an invitation to the Hong Kong public to invest in collective investment schemes ("CIS") unless the issue is authorised by the SFC or an exemption applies.

thank you for providing this information.

hksfc

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

Quote from: will on May 06, 2014, 08:39:56 AM

Some of the CryptoMex members are in direct communication with the SFC (Hong Kong regulator) regarding CryptoMex.io and have been for a while now.

It is an offence under section 103 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance ("SFO") to issue an advertisement, invitation or document which is or contains an invitation to the Hong Kong public to invest in collective investment schemes ("CIS") unless the issue is authorised by the SFC or an exemption applies.

Hoofprint

full member

Activity: 428

Merit: 100

Quote from: will on May 08, 2014, 03:36:47 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on May 08, 2014, 11:16:58 AM

Quote from: will on May 08, 2014, 11:13:26 AM

Quote from: drawingthesun on May 08, 2014, 10:40:06 AM

Once you decide to start a business, you're creating for yourself a liability and if your too much of a wimp to deal with it you should never have started the business in the first place.

A question was asked and answered. The decision to initiate an emotional response to it was yours, not mine.

Many of us are emotional, this is true.

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

I don't. I didn't make the change.

Having worked in web development for more than a decade, I know that once something is posted on the 'net is remains there in perpetuity. The investigation showed that the incident was unrelated to this project. The undue arousal of suspicion is my responsibility, in retrospect I should have checked and asked DT to change it back. Don't blame Ludvig for this, he reacted rationally to a friend in potential danger.

Dont take this the wrong way but personally i dont care if your kid was kidnapped or not.
Alls i read in that previous post was maybe someone was getting revenge for another scheme you have stiffed people on.

I can see by the way you and terra have been spending our money on expensive hotels, flights and legal fees
you have no appreciation of the blood, sweat and tears people put into earning money to fund your IPO

You and terra knew full well people would hate this KYC bullcrap and you pushed it anyway to buy time.
Get off your asses and pay dividends to the registered addresses you have on icedrill.io or
come clean an tell us how boned we are so we can plan ahead

raskul

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: will on May 08, 2014, 03:36:47 PM

.

^ that's fightin talk.
just an observation.sorry.

will

full member

Activity: 179

Merit: 100

Quote from: drawingthesun on May 08, 2014, 11:16:58 AM

Quote from: will on May 08, 2014, 11:13:26 AM

Quote from: drawingthesun on May 08, 2014, 10:40:06 AM

Once you decide to start a business, you're creating for yourself a liability and if your too much of a wimp to deal with it you should never have started the business in the first place.

A question was asked and answered. The decision to initiate an emotional response to it was yours, not mine.

Many of us are emotional, this is true.

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

I don't. I didn't make the change.

Having worked in web development for more than a decade, I know that once something is posted on the 'net is remains there in perpetuity. The investigation showed that the incident was unrelated to this project. The undue arousal of suspicion is my responsibility, in retrospect I should have checked and asked DT to change it back. Don't blame Ludvig for this, he reacted rationally to a friend in potential danger.

Dexter770221

legendary

Activity: 1029

Merit: 1000

Lets focus on subject. What's with that dividends? You answered that is not an issue to pay them.

sporket

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: Minor Miner on May 08, 2014, 01:49:02 PM

...
Most people do not lie about serious issues especially with regard to their children.

This is bitcoin. We're not most people

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: pmorici on May 08, 2014, 02:33:50 PM

Quote from: will on May 08, 2014, 07:22:25 AM

Quote from: dropt on May 07, 2014, 05:32:33 PM

Further, why was the adminstrators identifying information removed from the original posts? Thankfully TAT quoted it for reference.

DT suggested the change after a kidnapping attempt on my daughter in mid-April.

So you must have reported that to the authorities right? So there should be a official record of such a serious attempted crime with some police department?

I'm sure there should be a record.

pmorici

sr. member

Activity: 479

Merit: 250

Quote from: will on May 08, 2014, 07:22:25 AM

Quote from: dropt on May 07, 2014, 05:32:33 PM

Further, why was the adminstrators identifying information removed from the original posts? Thankfully TAT quoted it for reference.

DT suggested the change after a kidnapping attempt on my daughter in mid-April.

So you must have reported that to the authorities right? So there should be a official record of such a serious attempted crime with some police department?

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: Minor Miner on May 08, 2014, 01:49:02 PM

Most people do not lie about serious issues especially with regard to their children.

I see your point, although I feel that many scammers in this space have so many excuses with "children" being an easy one. Will might be telling the truth.

In the case that Will is in fact telling the truth, another matter comes to light. Is the onus on Will to secure his family and children (perhaps hire a bodyguard) or is the onus on the shareholders to accept that Will is now ok becoming more anonymous just as he now asks all of his investors to come out and produce full documentation.

I feel the onus is on Will, he should protect his family via a guard. Using security theatre isn't very effective, his details are already out anyway. I have a huge knee jerk reaction against people running public securities who want themselves to become hidden and anonymous to a far greater extent than their investors.

Minor Miner

legendary

Activity: 2338

Merit: 1013

Be A Digital Miner

Quote from: drawingthesun on May 08, 2014, 01:41:51 PM

Quote from: Minor Miner on May 08, 2014, 01:33:22 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on May 08, 2014, 11:16:58 AM

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

Because somebody tried to harm his family!!!
You do not feel that is a good reason?

Not sure if you figured this out, but I'm making the assumption he might be lying to you.
It's convenient for people in a difficult position running a dying company to use excuses that cover themselves and their identities.
I could be wrong, but isn't it funny as they now expect all shareholders to hand over their identity (address, passport, etc...) the guy running the show slips off into the shadows.
One rule for them and another for us.
My question to you, Minor Miner, why are you ok with being forced to hand over your identity even though this was never a requirement when buying shares in the first place? But you're quick to protect those that are in fact working against your best interests.

I do not own shares. My interest in Icedrill is purely intellectual. I cannot invest in anything that may not hold up to scrutiny nor can I avoid not paying income taxes on everything I make profit from, so most of your points (which I understand) do not and never will apply to me.
Most people do not lie about serious issues especially with regard to their children.

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Minor Miner on May 08, 2014, 01:33:22 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on May 08, 2014, 11:16:58 AM

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

Because somebody tried to harm his family!!!
You do not feel that is a good reason?

Ya, I heard that happened to Danny Brewster too!

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: Minor Miner on May 08, 2014, 01:33:22 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on May 08, 2014, 11:16:58 AM

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

Because somebody tried to harm his family!!!
You do not feel that is a good reason?

Not sure if you figured this out, but I'm making the assumption he might be lying to you.

It's convenient for people in a difficult position running a dying company to use excuses that cover themselves and their identities.

I could be wrong, but isn't it funny as they now expect all shareholders to hand over their identity (address, passport, etc...) the guy running the show slips off into the shadows.

One rule for them and another for us.

My question to you, Minor Miner, why are you ok with being forced to hand over your identity even though this was never a requirement when buying shares in the first place? But you're quick to protect those that are in fact working against your best interests.

Minor Miner

legendary

Activity: 2338

Merit: 1013

Be A Digital Miner

Quote from: drawingthesun on May 08, 2014, 11:16:58 AM

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

Because somebody tried to harm his family!!!
You do not feel that is a good reason?

raskul

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: will on May 08, 2014, 11:13:26 AM

Quote from: drawingthesun on May 08, 2014, 10:40:06 AM

Once you decide to start a business, you're creating for yourself a liability and if your too much of a wimp to deal with it you should never have started the business in the first place.

A question was asked and answered. The decision to initiate an emotional response to it was yours, not mine.

oops a clanger for this needs a longer conversation.

Topic: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) - page 32. (Read 378431 times)