Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 40. (Read 316457 times)

Rant on NEOBEE!

What's to rant about with ICE.Drill?  They're buying hashing power and selling it on to 'investors' with only a 30-40% fee which is favourable compared to what other companies want you to pay for you to get ownership of a portion of losses.  And as DeadTerra is administrating it you likely get the benefit of not actually getting your losses delivered until a few weeks after you PM asking for them.  Can't see anything to rant about there.

Disclaimer : I've flipped ICE.drill shares for a profit a few times and am currently stuck with some I tried to flip but got the timing wrong and missed the boat on.  if anyone's feeling charitable and wants to overpay for them feel free to PM me.  You may make a profit (if I sell them cheap enough) but it won't justify tieing the cash up.  You can, however, feel proud that you supported a legitimate large-scale mining endeavour where the issuers aren't obviously taking anything up front - which may be worth something to you (it isn't to me).

Perhaps minus stupid.

Do you think MPOE-PR is actually a woman who works for Mircea Popescu?  Because that's the only other possibility.


Do you even lift?

Not offended, but do you also have a rant about ICE.Drill?

Is this related to that usagi guy once pretending to be a japanese girl? Whats up with bitcoin company owners and trans fantasies idk.

Don't think we "know" anything of the sort.  Care to explain how you actually "know" that?

Do you "know" what "know" even means?

You guys know MPOE-PR is a dude pretending to be a girl who works for said dude, right?

Total nutbar.

I don't disagree with your response at all.  If ACTM had been a year earlier then it could have been a great investment - as it stands the only profit it will make is the (likely pretend) profit from idiots/sockpuppets who throw their cash way to them rather than other 'pre-order' blackholes.

On mining companies in current enironment if they haven't made back 90% of capital in first three months then you just spunked your investment away.  No new news there.

Point still stands that the bet was trying to hold them to a standard that very few (if any) companies ever met so can't be publicised as a measure of success/failure - as if taken at face value no business ever succeeded.  That the bet was made on a site that itself was IPOed and dismally failed as an investment is just the icing on the cake (yeah - some of you may claim a few % per year isn't a failure but I'd be slitting my wrists if I had to try to present that as success to my own investors).

::waves::

Let's not badmouth Firefly please.

I don't know or care who created it - just that MPOE-PR (the spokesperson for BBET) promoted the bet as though it actually proved something.  Very few (if any) companies have repaid initial investors within the period specified in the bet.  ASICMINER made that scale or repayments - though not sure if in the period.  My fund LTC-ATF did (though definitely NOT within the listed period - first dividend we paid was well after that but was 100% of initial investment).  

The bet is terrible - as even legitimate comapanies wouldn't "win" under its terms (prove me wrong by naming a few that would have won such a bet).  But it was promoted as somehow being proof of ACTM's shiteness : if you want to prove they're crap (which they are - in case anyone's confused) then at least have the sense to make a bet based on some criterion that companies which aren't shite actually pass.

I'll have a go. Umm...Star Wars >>>> Star Trek? Nethin'?

meh. I sold out of labcoin after their last round of lies er...errors...so still waiting to be offended.

Cheers?

If there's anyone I haven't offended please feel free to post (detailing why you aren't offended) and I'll make a genuine effort to offend you.  Wouldn't want anyone feeling left out.

I'm pretty drunk so take anything I say with a large pinch of salt.  I like the transparency on this fund (though it invests in mining so will make a loss anyway).  If the fund has ANY captal tied up in labcoin then get it out : it's not possible to distinguish between scammers/incompetents but they're definitely one or the other.

I had maybe 800 BTC of bids on Labcoin at IPO.  Not because I thought they were great or anything - but because I thought they'd sell out and I could sell at a profit.  I was correct - as were any number of other people doing the same thing.  Don't confuse that with them being worth leaving cash tied up in for any period of time.  They have an entirely uninformed shill/puppet account posting contentless posts to drive the market up.  There's absolutely no sensible reason why, if they were genuine, they'd have such a dick-head making posts in their name.  So we know they're either shit or bent.  It doesn't matter which they are - neither is worth tieing cash up in.

Labcoin was free cash if you flipped the IPO (doesn't matter if you sold to real idiots or pretend idiots played by the asset issuers - you made the same amount of BTC) and something to totally ignore thereafter.  Those with more courage than me may have made more thereafter - I'm a coward and tend to take free cash rather than cash with a risk attached : there's so much given away that there's no justification for taking on risk.

In case the previous is unclear let me make it plain.  If you have Labcoin shares (and don't have inside knowledge) you ARE a fucking idiot.  There's no grey area on that.  There's no wiggle-room of "well it seems better than other shite investments".  They have a total incompetent making posts on their behalf.  Can't speak for other business owners but if I hired a total incompetent it would be because I wanted misleading posts made (if I wanted accurate posts then I'd hire someone competent - not rocket science).  If a company wants misleading posts made then why, oh why, would you believe ANYTHING they say?

I have no idea at all whether swed099 (or whatever his name is) is a sock-puppet, a noob or just an idiot with no direct line to genuine information.  It doesn't matter WHICH it is - just that it's one of them.  Specifically he's supposedly the PR but has no information worth making posts about - which makes the role meaningless.  Now that's not a new development in BTC 'finance' - as I've had a few beers let's piss a lot off people off rather than just a few

MPEx also have a PR - who will happily make a thread about a BBET bet that AMC (Ken's company that wants to confuse itself with ASICMINER but is a year late to the party) not repaying investors within 6 months but fails to link to any bet that it won't, itself, repay IPO buyers within even a few years (I'd take the NO side on that bet if you can't guess).  There's something hilariously amusing about a company that is unlikely to ever return profit to investors bragging about hosting bets regarding another dismal attempt to be an 'investment'.  I don't have any great hopes of AMC ever making a profit but I'd rate the likelihood of them making a profit (defined as investors receiving back dividends exceeding the highest price paid for shares sold by the company) as higher than the same being the case for those who got caught out at the top of BBET bids (for which I'd assign a 0% chance).  Statistics can be used to try to make any point you want - but I'd be really cautious personally of accusing someone else of something (failing to return IPO price withing 6 months) that rather clearly applied to the entity from which the accusation was made.  No doubt I got that wrong and there'll be a slew of posts proving how MPEx investors make back 150% of share price PA.

I believe it would be difficult to classify some of these statements as something other than intentionally misleading.


That's their latest official release. They waited several days after that official release to slowly announce in a piecemeal fashion on a thread that moves several pages every day that they're not meeting their official claims. They've still not updated their website or even the OP in their discussion thread to reflect their current status.

Despite the shadiness, the only statement in their contract they're obviously violating is this one and it's pretty generic:

I'm curious what actions you think burnside should take.

unfortunately, there is some truth behind this

100%agree