Topic: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) - page 79. (Read 378562 times)

Unless Hashfast would be able guarantee a batch 1 delivery, 40,000 shares for a batch 2 baby jet is far too much. Further still, if you remove all the individuals with fewer than 120,000 shares, the average shareholder has only ~6,500 shares. That still leaves a very large majority of people without much of a reasonable option at this point.

However, I might be interested in seeing if a group buy, organized, price negotiated and paid by IceDrill to Hashfast for Nov. batch 2 Baby Jets. The current going price for a BJet out of b2 is $2,760 -or- about 22BTC -or- nearly 16,000 shares. I think that may still be too high for a lot of shareholders, but with a large b2 order, IceDrill should be able to negotiate a better price. I think it would be ideal to try to get units to holders for as little as 10,000 shares. This equates to approximately $1,750 at current BTC price for a BJet -or- ~$4.38 per GH (HF's current b2 price is $6.90/Gh). This gives shareholders with at least 10,000 shares a good option and the benefit of the appreciated value on the coin they spent at the beginning of the IPO offering. Obviously, whether or not Hashfast would be willing to go that low is uncertain. Those with less than the 10,000 shares may then be better served with a buyback option at .0014-.0015 per share, or a shared hardware hosting contract - don't really see an easy way to handle the smaller hands in this IPO beyond that.

There is unlikely to be a wonderful solution for everyone given the mess it has become. -and I place no blame upon IceDrill for it.

Investors should also stop pushing the problems to icedrill. it's not icedrill fault either. why not blame Bitfunder or Government?

Refund sounds even weird, since when bad investment decision get refunded?

People were warned. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3283388

Can you please confirm: As a non-US investor I can get verified and hold the shares. You will be paying dividends via BitFunder.

Q&A: Share destruction for hardware ownership option.


We don't have an elegant solution to this at the moment, but we’re working on a proposal. We welcome any suggestions/guidance on the matter and will post the proposal when it’s ready. The basic premise for the proposal would be to preserve the terms of the original investment in a (shared) hosting solution.


The machines will undergo final assembly in Canada.


For the duration of our IPO the valuation of BTC spot price was stable around $100. All 0.0014 and 0.0015 BTC shares sold within that week.

The $7080 cost you're showing is for a batch 2 Sierra, which will ship about a month later (see: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3242499) than the batch 1 Sierras we'll be deploying.


Seems risky, but it's a very valid question. We're awaiting a response from Ukyo on this.


Clearing your position is optional, we cannot and will not force you to do it. Please note that the total amount of shares will also be scaled down proportionally (by destroying them). This means that in terms of hashing power per share and in terms of reinvestment per share, the amount will stay the same.


The hosting proposal is forthcoming and will take into account all factors. It is designed to be an all-in, full-service hosting offer which will aim to preserve the terms of the original investment in a hosting solution.


Would this not just be delaying the same issue? Even though we have been in contact with Havelock, we don't think the US regulatory landscape will change before the mine is operational.


As I understand it the problem isn't with non-verified US persons. The problem is with US persons, photo ID submission does not address the issue.


Completely agree. We'll seriously consider any viable suggestions for solutions on this matter. To date we've only seen "move to another trading platform" as a suggestion, which we feel is untenable long-term.


The shares for hardware proposal does not include any actual information (especially on the parameters for the hosting option). Preserving the original investment via a hosting contract (as jimbobway mentioned) is the intent so we're modelling the hosting offer around that. We’re just waiting on confirmation of some parameters and will post a summary of it when ready.

What makes you think that is the case?

Guys, just hold your shares, you can still withdraw your dividend just that you cant sell your shares...

Ask icebreaker what we should do.. I thought she was the spokeswoman? 

wow, what is with all the fuss?  I think people are forgetting that operating costs need to be deducted before dividends are paid to us. So, IceDrill is not double charging anyone. They are just letting you see the cost now versus taking it out first before giving you the dividend. Having said that, the shipping cost thing is a bxtch. They could take shipment  to their DC in bulk (which saves a lot of cost), which I can't do with my 1 machine or whatever without paying a lot for shipping. However, for the big investors, I would take the machines in a heartbeat. Why take the risk of any US regulation which will eventually hit any platform that touches U.S individuals?

Please don't convert everything into 'direct' shares. No matter how bad BitFunder is, at least I can sleep better at night knowing that there is a formal system/process in place.

People were warned. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2921430

-helixone

Why just US investors. Internationals unwilling to identify are also doomed, because shares can't be traded without verification after Nov 1st.

Just make an arrangemengt with havelock. They will likely run into similar troubles, though.

thanks Sam!

There's nothing to address to. It's simple very bad idea, propose another solution. People already paid for shipment, customs, hosting, maintance when they bought shares. You ask to pay twice.

Hi All

We've been reading all of the feedback and will answer all questions and address all concerns shortly.

Unfortunately the trading ban is for everyone, not just US-people:

Notice also that there appears to be a "transfer" option on bitfunder.  Perhaps a u.s. citizen can transfer their shares to a non-U.S. friend or loved one who has (or opens) a bitfunder (and weExchange) account. 

But otherwise, as jimbobway points out, there are more reasonable options available.  Let's get on those and keep this project going.

Guys please stop blaming IceDrill, no body would have know what would happen to bitfunder back then. I believe icedrill is doing a good job coming out with the option.


What makes you think havelock investments would be safe?

This solution defeats the purpose of the investment and should only be considered as a bail option. There needs to be a way to keep the original intent of the investment preserved, while accommodating the movement towards compliance with the regulatory structure for securities.

Obviously the whole thing is only a problem for US citizens. And you can thank the US government for that - instead of putting all the blame on the IceDrill management. If you do so, then you're shooting the messenger.

If someone has a suggestion to preserve the original intent of the investment, while complying with the regulatory requirements, I am sure IceDrill will consider it. A managed hardware solution (i.e. hosting) is a start, but it needs to include all the privileges the original contract had in mind.

I don't get it, why would anybody want to exchange their shares for hardware when the shares cost twice what buying the hardware yourself would cost?  And how many people own hundreds of thousands of shares?  lol
I don't own any shares but man, this BitFunder meltdown is leading to some really half-assed solutions guys. 

What is the problem with transferring the holding of the shares from bitfunder to one of the other markets or exchanges?  Or what about turning the shares into stakes in private hosting under digimex WITH THE SAME TERMS that we agreed to already?  These are the more reasonable options one would think.  And if there are regulatory issues for you guys too, then U.S. asset holders can show you some stinking photo ID so you can comply with the KYC regulations.  We're professionals.  Right?

I agree, just because the stock exchange goes out of business doesn't mean the company isn't still obligated to the share holders.  Anyone know a good class action lawyer in Hang Kong?