Topic: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) - page 54. (Read 378675 times)
January 22, 2014, 12:34:51 PM
I don't mean to spread panic. I'm here for the long term and still am an optimist. Guys really did their part smoothly and on time. But just wanted to say, if HF is a sinking ship, which I believe it is, be smart, make the right move even if it means additional delays in setting up the mine, and let us not sink with them.
January 22, 2014, 11:27:14 AM
Expect updates coming in sparingly.
For now assume IceDrill to be highly illiquid, for two reasons:
- there is hardly any underlying cash flow due to the HashFast situation. Based on what I learned the current management is trying to recover as much cash flow as possible without compromising other activities.
- IceDrill may need to be transformed in certain aspects to make it viable again. The heavy lifting needs to be done by the private shareholders which need to add to the underlying value proposition**, but that is a SLOW process.
**there may be a redesign of the incentive system necessary, as with the old contract, private shareholders are barred from any profits before a total dividend of 0.0016 BTC has been met, which is a non-starter if you want them to add additional revenue streams.
Eventually there will be a comprehensive update, but right now everything is in a flux.
What IceDrill needs to achieve is to recover from the 'deer caught in the headlights' moment.
For now assume IceDrill to be highly illiquid, for two reasons:
- there is hardly any underlying cash flow due to the HashFast situation. Based on what I learned the current management is trying to recover as much cash flow as possible without compromising other activities.
- IceDrill may need to be transformed in certain aspects to make it viable again. The heavy lifting needs to be done by the private shareholders which need to add to the underlying value proposition**, but that is a SLOW process.
**there may be a redesign of the incentive system necessary, as with the old contract, private shareholders are barred from any profits before a total dividend of 0.0016 BTC has been met, which is a non-starter if you want them to add additional revenue streams.
Eventually there will be a comprehensive update, but right now everything is in a flux.
What IceDrill needs to achieve is to recover from the 'deer caught in the headlights' moment.
January 21, 2014, 05:54:18 PM
Situation is not looking bright.
Cointerra is certain to deliver in next 4 weeks.
ScamFast is certain not to deliver in next 2 weeks, but on the other hand more than certain to face multiple charges in court. So, even if we start hashing in february, it's just a matter of time when will HF die and be remembered as bad memory. Along with it die ID's exclusive deals for getting new equipment ahead of anyone else.
If we start hashing, I dare to say, we might see 10% of our investment back. If we demand for a btc refund, and HF is seen refunding btc to their batch1 customers which ID certainly is, then we might have our money back.
IF not all of it then a bigger part of it. I sincerely hope IceDrill is not making any deals with bigger investors behind our back and that potential btc refund will be distributed EVENLY.
Cointerra is certain to deliver in next 4 weeks.
ScamFast is certain not to deliver in next 2 weeks, but on the other hand more than certain to face multiple charges in court. So, even if we start hashing in february, it's just a matter of time when will HF die and be remembered as bad memory. Along with it die ID's exclusive deals for getting new equipment ahead of anyone else.
If we start hashing, I dare to say, we might see 10% of our investment back. If we demand for a btc refund, and HF is seen refunding btc to their batch1 customers which ID certainly is, then we might have our money back.
IF not all of it then a bigger part of it. I sincerely hope IceDrill is not making any deals with bigger investors behind our back and that potential btc refund will be distributed EVENLY.
January 21, 2014, 04:25:48 PM
hey;
so i'am not really up to date about this project and i hope somebody can help me with this:
I remember that there was some kind of "investor protection clause" saying, that the investors will get 0,0015?? per share back, if the project fails?(Not really sure about this...)
Or was the clause saying that investors get paid all dividends until 0,0015 per share got paid??(Or is this wrong,too?)
Anyway, am i right when i say, that this project looks like a disaster??
so i'am not really up to date about this project and i hope somebody can help me with this:
I remember that there was some kind of "investor protection clause" saying, that the investors will get 0,0015?? per share back, if the project fails?(Not really sure about this...)
Or was the clause saying that investors get paid all dividends until 0,0015 per share got paid??(Or is this wrong,too?)
Anyway, am i right when i say, that this project looks like a disaster??
I remembered it like this:
Hopefully everyone remembers the IPO filing stated that no dividends would be payed to private shares until all public shares got an accumulated dividend of at least the IPO share price... (I'm not 100% sure, but there was something like that in it.) Most probably someone will have a backup of the IPO filing from BitFunder to find the exact conditions. Maybe these documents should be published on the icedrill.io website as well.
The only remaining question is how much private investment was made and how honest the management will be concerning this statement.
January 21, 2014, 04:12:34 PM
hey;
so i'am not really up to date about this project and i hope somebody can help me with this:
I remember that there was some kind of "investor protection clause" saying, that the investors will get 0,0015?? per share back, if the project fails?(Not really sure about this...)
Or was the clause saying that investors get paid all dividends until 0,0015 per share got paid??(Or is this wrong,too?)
Anyway, am i right when i say, that this project looks like a disaster??
so i'am not really up to date about this project and i hope somebody can help me with this:
I remember that there was some kind of "investor protection clause" saying, that the investors will get 0,0015?? per share back, if the project fails?(Not really sure about this...)
Or was the clause saying that investors get paid all dividends until 0,0015 per share got paid??(Or is this wrong,too?)
Anyway, am i right when i say, that this project looks like a disaster??
January 20, 2014, 07:58:27 PM
Hey, who's little fish, see these fingers I'm holding up, I gots more than that, MORE I tell you. 
January 20, 2014, 07:26:27 PM
Ya, why the hell is it taking so long to get us any kind of valuable information. I think we've all been patient but this is just getting ridiculous now.
maybe terra and will were offered their own personal Sierra's to sign a Scamfast NDA
no seriously i think they have a offsite forum for the major shareholder's, us little fish just have to wait for the leftover scraps of information
January 20, 2014, 05:58:01 PM
yet another attempt to take advantage of the helpless victims of the 2013 bitcointalk scamrush.
January 20, 2014, 04:35:41 PM
Ya, why the hell is it taking so long to get us any kind of valuable information. I think we've all been patient but this is just getting ridiculous now.
January 20, 2014, 04:34:34 PM
Seeing a pic of 3 units now hashing is nice and so on but its really nothing else but hot air compared to the one and only urgent question right now?
Is there any reasonable (shareholder satisfying) compensation for the delay of delivery?
Even if they deliver all their initial promised ASICs by tomorrow, its still a total fallout and noone will get his BTC back...
You are discussing this for now over 2 weeks I believe, so what can we expect?
Is there any reasonable (shareholder satisfying) compensation for the delay of delivery?
Even if they deliver all their initial promised ASICs by tomorrow, its still a total fallout and noone will get his BTC back...
You are discussing this for now over 2 weeks I believe, so what can we expect?
January 16, 2014, 10:22:07 AM
No problem sorry about the slow updates some times,
It is hard to push updates out as I have to confirm with several sources before I can post
//DeaDTerra
It is hard to push updates out as I have to confirm with several sources before I can post
//DeaDTerra
Thank-you DT. I appreciate your timely response to my inquiries.
January 16, 2014, 10:02:40 AM
When the customers payed for the order with bitcoin they gave up opportunity 2 (BTC->USD) voluntarily, but they didn't give up opportunity 1 (MINING->BTC). When HF didn't deliver mining hardware they destroyed opportunity 1.
I concur, I just feel a sense that it could all go horribly wrong for the claimants. And yes, I know that in legal terms, if you aim for the sky you might make the ceiling... it's interesting, and i'm following keenly. Personally, i'm glad I paid HF in USD, but i'm content to take the refund offered rather than go down the route of legal proceedings.
Payment in USD still makes them liable for missing opportunity 1. But I fully understand people who don't want to deal with the legal procedures and thus take the bait and settle now. Those people are precisely why they send these USD settlement checks - it reduces their liability without any efforts. If the customer is happy with their USD settlement, it's a win-win.
Their next offer probably entails something like a fractional bitcoin settlement, to shake off the next group of customers...
January 16, 2014, 09:31:47 AM
The issue is not about a refund anymore. It's about an undelivered product and HF has to replace the opportunity.
...'ooooh look how much I could have had if i'd kept my BTC'
courts don't appreciate if's and but's and this could easily be the downfall of any legitimate case.
...
When the customers payed for the order with bitcoin they gave up opportunity 2 (BTC->USD) voluntarily, but they didn't give up opportunity 1 (MINING->BTC). When HF didn't deliver mining hardware they destroyed opportunity 1.
I concur, I just feel a sense that it could all go horribly wrong for the claimants. And yes, I know that in legal terms, if you aim for the sky you might make the ceiling... it's interesting, and i'm following keenly. Personally, i'm glad I paid HF in USD, but i'm content to take the refund offered rather than go down the route of legal proceedings.
January 16, 2014, 09:23:36 AM
The issue is not about a refund anymore. It's about an undelivered product and HF has to replace the opportunity.
...'ooooh look how much I could have had if i'd kept my BTC'
courts don't appreciate if's and but's and this could easily be the downfall of any legitimate case.
...
When the customers payed for the order with bitcoin they gave up opportunity 2 (BTC->USD) voluntarily, but they didn't give up opportunity 1 (MINING->BTC). When HF didn't deliver mining hardware they destroyed opportunity 1.
January 16, 2014, 09:09:45 AM
I don't anticipate any judge in the universe ruling in favour of a full BTC repayment to HashFast pro-order customers at current rates of exchange.
well, that's my 2p...
good luck with your venture DT
The issue is not about a refund anymore. It's about an undelivered product and HF has to replace the opportunity.well, that's my 2p...
good luck with your venture DT
don't get me wrong, i totally agree that these timescale promises should never have been made in the first place, but from reading others posts, and looking at the legal documents which have been submitted in relation to the case, it does smack a bit of...
'ooooh look how much I could have had if i'd kept my BTC'
courts don't appreciate if's and but's and this could easily be the downfall of any legitimate case.
the facts remain, refunds are being offered... and I also think there should be 'some' recompense made to customers who have not received batch1, but the amounts being demanded are just a bit silly, really.
January 16, 2014, 09:00:21 AM
I don't anticipate any judge in the universe ruling in favour of a full BTC repayment to HashFast pro-order customers at current rates of exchange.
well, that's my 2p...
good luck with your venture DT
The issue is not about a refund anymore. It's about an undelivered product and HF has to replace the opportunity.well, that's my 2p...
good luck with your venture DT
The promise pushed forward by HF since August was that their customers will not take a hit to their opportunity. The opportunity here is the difference between spending and not spending their bitcoins with HF.
First they did that with a close to the edge priced product (in terms of bitcoin ROI) based on a timely delivery in october. Later they upgraded that promise by offering a MPP and promising delivery to the end of the year. Actions speak louder than words, which can be twisted and turned (something they even try now).
HF has a liability on their books and they're doing everything they can to get rid of it. The same deceptive strategies they applied during their marketing now is used in their legal resolve. I expect them to prolong this tactics as long as they need to get the books cleaned up. After then it depends on the level of criminal energy within HF. If they turn "sober", they will likely clean up their marketing and replace it by a more honest approach and offer transparent contracts, with clear refund conditions and penalties for non-delivery denominated in USD.
January 16, 2014, 08:32:35 AM
good to read an update that didn't include any whinging and moaning.
while i'm at it, i'm going to put in my 2p on current conversations...
here's a hypothetical one for you;
If I instruct my bank (in the UK) to transfer $xxxx to a US manufacturers bank for a purchase order, the transfer costs me £xxxx and the exchange rate is x.xx etc etc
Eventually I decide that I want a refund and the company I sent the purchase order to refunds the exact amount of $USD as they received at the time of purchase.
Unfortunately the exchange rate at time of refund has dropped and I lose £xxx due to the exchange rate
who's fault is it that I lost money?
is it the producer of the product? NO.
is it the bank for reducing their exchange rate? NO
I don't anticipate any judge in the universe ruling in favour of a full BTC repayment to HashFast pro-order customers at current rates of exchange.
well, that's my 2p...
good luck with your venture DT
while i'm at it, i'm going to put in my 2p on current conversations...
here's a hypothetical one for you;
If I instruct my bank (in the UK) to transfer $xxxx to a US manufacturers bank for a purchase order, the transfer costs me £xxxx and the exchange rate is x.xx etc etc
Eventually I decide that I want a refund and the company I sent the purchase order to refunds the exact amount of $USD as they received at the time of purchase.
Unfortunately the exchange rate at time of refund has dropped and I lose £xxx due to the exchange rate
who's fault is it that I lost money?
is it the producer of the product? NO.
is it the bank for reducing their exchange rate? NO
I don't anticipate any judge in the universe ruling in favour of a full BTC repayment to HashFast pro-order customers at current rates of exchange.
well, that's my 2p...
good luck with your venture DT
January 16, 2014, 08:05:00 AM
Awwww, they look lonely, hope they get some friends soon.
January 16, 2014, 07:41:26 AM
Thank you for the updates!!
January 16, 2014, 06:08:19 AM
So many empty U's 
Jump to: