Pages:
Author

Topic: btt - page 22. (Read 407343 times)

legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1090
Learning the troll avoidance button :)
September 27, 2013, 12:04:34 AM
October 3rd for havelocks announcement regarding their legal status not sure if bitfunder will do a similar research based approach.

Hello everyone, just an update on Havleock Investments and the ongoing legal uncertainty in the bitcoin world.
We are still working with our legal team to get our affairs in order and have been told we will have information with which to move forward next week.  We'll be letting everyone know on Thursday October 3rd.
To all the fund managers who have contacted us inquiring about listing, we thank you for your interest and will be able to give some definite answers next Thursday.
Thanks for your time.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
September 26, 2013, 04:03:22 PM
I do not trust Ukyo more than I trust me. No offense. Wink

 Angry  What?  How dare you!

I trust Ukyo *WAY* more than I trust myself.   Tongue

No offense.  Wait, wut?!
Esh
newbie
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
September 26, 2013, 03:40:57 PM
I think you misunderstand me Creative. My point is simply that issuers moving from BTC-TC have contractual responsibilities to their shareholders, and that shareholders should hold them to those responsibilities. Many many assets will move to Bitfunder in the next two weeks. The details of those migrations matter, and those following this thread who have positions in assets making that migration should be vigilant.

I don't think there's a misunderstanding at all. Determining whether and where to move is an important decision. I'm weighing the options and don't see bitfunder as viable for the reasons I've already stated. I've met my responsibilities to shareholders today by scheduling dividends to be paid at precisely the time of day in which they were scheduled last week before this disaster began.

I'm off the clock now.


I believe you are interpreting my comments as directed towards you and BASIC, or as impugning your trustworthiness unless constrained by a contract. Nothing could be further from my intent. In fact this is the only thread I'm following in which the subject of the contract modification terms on Bitfunder has even come up (to say nothing of the fact that it was you who brought it up, much to your credit). I do, however, mean to defend the possibility of moving to Bitfunder if this issue can be addressed in a satisfactory way (setting aside the reasons I noted earlier that suggest that Havelock is on more solid regulatory ground), while also encouraging those reading to take this same problem up with other issuers. Of course the final decision on migration is yours, and I'm confident that you'll make it with the best interests of shareholders in mind.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
September 26, 2013, 03:15:59 PM
Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

mate BTCT are closing

what are we doing?

Direct shares?

I'm happy with anything

But we can't keep it like that... Uncertainty kill in this market

The stock will be at 0.01 by the end of next week


Ideal time for buyback Pssst!  Wink

This isn't labcoin, BTCGarden, PETA-MINE, ActM or countess other money grabs. bASIC-Mining has only ever taken in a total of 1872.7165 on the sale of 4000 shares while paying out 682.6940 in dividends, and 1584.5395 to purchase hardware and investments.

This means we've already paid out 394.5170 more than we've ever taken in from investors and we still have 762.9402 in liquid assets belonging to shareholders as well as 2.235Th of mining gear also belonging to shareholders. This value has been created through responsible management.

I donated the original ASIC pre-order that this company was founded upon. I find it offensive that you'd even make such a comment even if in tiny text.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
September 26, 2013, 02:43:32 PM
I think you misunderstand me Creative. My point is simply that issuers moving from BTC-TC have contractual responsibilities to their shareholders, and that shareholders should hold them to those responsibilities. Many many assets will move to Bitfunder in the next two weeks. The details of those migrations matter, and those following this thread who have positions in assets making that migration should be vigilant.

I don't think there's a misunderstanding at all. Determining whether and where to move is an important decision. I'm weighing the options and don't see bitfunder as viable for the reasons I've already stated. I've met my responsibilities to shareholders today by scheduling dividends to be paid at precisely the time of day in which they were scheduled last week before this disaster began.

I'm off the clock now.

Esh
newbie
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
September 26, 2013, 02:29:03 PM
Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

I think you misunderstand me Creative. My point is simply that issuers moving from BTC-TC have contractual responsibilities to their shareholders, and that shareholders should hold them to those responsibilities. Many many assets will move to Bitfunder in the next two weeks. The details of those migrations matter, and those following this thread who have positions in assets making that migration should be vigilant.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
September 26, 2013, 02:23:42 PM
Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

mate BTCT are closing

what are we doing?

Direct shares?

I'm happy with anything

But we can't keep it like that... Uncertainty kill in this market

The stock will be at 0.01 by the end of next week


Ideal time for buyback Pssst!  Wink
newbie
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
September 26, 2013, 02:20:27 PM
Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

mate BTCT is closing

what are we doing?

Direct shares?

I'm happy with anything

But we can't keep it like that... Uncertainty kill in this market

The stock will be at 0.01 by the end of next week
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
September 26, 2013, 02:18:26 PM
I do not trust Ukyo more than I trust me. No offense. Wink
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
September 26, 2013, 02:14:35 PM
Asset issuers on bitfunder can unilaterally alter their own contracts.
Shocked

This is common knowledge and my primary reason for never having registered for an account on bf. To me this says "this exchange is not to be taken seriously"

CX, please recall that in the situation with AMC/VMC's IPO Ukyo enforced the initial terms, forcing all shares to be sold at 0.0005 and greatly angering Ken:

Quote
Quote from: Ukyo on May 31, 2013, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: kslaughter on May 31, 2013, 04:22:36 PM
Quote from: dhenson on May 31, 2013, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: kslaughter on May 31, 2013, 03:37:16 PM
The description does not say that, and it controls.

Can someone translate?

Sorry for the legal ease.  The description says that AMC may post the shares at no less that .0005

I think the issue is that the vast number of shares you are trying to sell, in comparison to the market, is huge.
It seems to me, that people would like you to set an official amount of shares at prices. This is why the tier method has worked in the past.

Perhaps you should say up to X shares will be Y price, and then Z shares will be A price, etc.. and use reasonable numbers.
I am sure the shareholder would much rather have that.

My two cents.

I think there was plenty of demand at the .0008 range and the volume was good.  Now by your God action you have caused my
investor to be mad at me.  I had no choice except to reduce the price to .0005 when I all the right per the description to sell
shares at no less that .0005.  You have hurt my reputation my you blantant action based on what in your "God" mind was the
right price.  The market was setting the price.  I tried to sell shares at .0009, but the market did not agree, so I reduced my
price to .0008 and the market started buy again.  I have went my the letter of the description which is posted on bitfunder.com

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2334871

Bitfunder is more flexible about changing contracts, which is a good thing because many assets undergo evolution for completely legitimate reasons (EG MiningCO's 1:10 split).

Ukyo is pretty strict about looking out for the investors, so that flexibility is limited to changes which are to their benefit.

Burnside OTOH, while strict and inflexible about changing contracts, allows any scam with enough votes to be listed (GARDEN, LABCOIN, CRYPTX) and doesn't really do much when they start screwing over investors.

I trust Ukyo even more than I trust you CX (no offense intended, both of you are controlling some of my BTC  Cool) and as you say, "trust is all that matters in this space."
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
September 26, 2013, 02:09:18 PM
Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.
Esh
newbie
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
September 26, 2013, 01:59:24 PM
Issuers can, of course, set that box to say 'No' or 'Yes, with vote'. As assets migrate to Bitfunder from BTC-TC it will be up to investors to ensure that issuers respect the terms of their existing contracts and set that option appropriately. As in all things Bitcoin, caveat emptor.
newbie
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
September 26, 2013, 01:51:40 PM
Asset issuers on bitfunder can unilaterally alter their own contracts.
Shocked

This is common knowledge and my primary reason for never having registered for an account on bf. To me this says "this exchange is not to be taken seriously"



Let's talk to Ukyo... If that's the only issue. I'm sure it can be resolved!

Seems to me we don't really have many options

But listing companies in more than 1 exchanges sounds like a good idea going fwd


sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
September 26, 2013, 01:44:04 PM
Asset issuers on bitfunder can unilaterally alter their own contracts.
Shocked

This is common knowledge and my primary reason for never having registered for an account on bf. To me this says "this exchange is not to be taken seriously"

sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
September 26, 2013, 01:21:56 PM
Assuming for a moment that's correct, how can you possibly feel comfortable having a position in icedrill with ActM and numerous other questionable assets listed on bitfunder? Asset issuers on bitfunder can unilaterally alter their own contracts. How long do you suppose before there's a huge blow up there?
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
September 26, 2013, 01:07:53 PM
I fail to see how bitfunder is any safer than btct.co? In fact it appears even more vulnerable to regulators.

Havelock has open inquiries about their regulatory compliance.

I also don't see how locking benefits anyone. If people want to trade they should be allowed to do so.

We still don't know why BTCT closed but it is not down because of the US or Canadian regulator

our risk is not with the exchange but with the issuer

just double list or triple list or more like other companies out there

Lock the shares since people are dumping them because they don't know if their investment is safe

Plus BTCT broke my heart, I want to move on... Wink

That's only my view

BTCT is shutting down because it helped LABcoin and BTC-GARDEN run their multi-million dollar scams.

He was already on thin ice.  Listing the GARDEN and LAB cons was like driving a truck loaded with steamrollers over that thin ice.

Burnside must now do everything he can just to stay out of jail for facilitating sale of unregulated "shares" of Chinese fraud stocks.

The SEC is going to spit-roast Burnside over a fire if he doesn't roll over and play dead ASAP.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
September 26, 2013, 12:59:38 PM
The issuer has been at personal risk all along, as has the operator of the exchange the issuer chose. While we don't know exactly what happened to cause burnside to shut down, we do know that he holds the vast majority of shares of global and we know he did not sell at the top. Those shares have fallen by 96%. This is not a GLBSE shutdown with the exchange operator absconding with everyone's coins. It appears that he's being screwed harder than anyone with this shutdown.

Stopping people from exercising their right to buy or sell isn't appropriate.

I'm sorry btct.co hurt your feelings. I'm also not happy about any of this, but I'm trying to make decisions based on information not emotion.
 
newbie
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
September 26, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
I fail to see how bitfunder is any safer than btct.co? In fact it appears even more vulnerable to regulators.

Havelock has open inquiries about their regulatory compliance.

I also don't see how locking benefits anyone. If people want to trade they should be allowed to do so.

We still don't know why BTCT closed but it is not down because of the US or Canadian regulator

our risk is not with the exchange but with the issuer

just double list or triple list or more like other companies out there

Lock the shares since people are dumping them because they don't know if their investment is safe

Plus BTCT broke my heart, I want to move on... Wink

That's only my view
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
Touchdown
September 26, 2013, 12:29:55 PM
I fail to see how bitfunder is any safer than btct.co? In fact it appears even more vulnerable to regulators.

Havelock has open inquiries about their regulatory compliance.
Not "safer", but still operational (i.e. neither of them have suggested they might close their doors in one month's time).

Or are there other options out there you consider "safer"?

Just trying to get an idea of which way you are leaning (and how liquid the market for shares might be in future).
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
September 26, 2013, 12:05:46 PM
I fail to see how bitfunder is any safer than btct.co? In fact it appears even more vulnerable to regulators.

Havelock has open inquiries about their regulatory compliance.

I also don't see how locking benefits anyone. If people want to trade they should be allowed to do so.
Pages:
Jump to: