Topic: <<< Gee Unlimited>>> (Read 2273 times)

Thank you once again for the constructive suggestions. It is always good advice for everyone to continue learning and improving themselves and their endeavors. I will certainly continue to do so upon your kind encouragement. I am glad we are in agreement, and I would also like to return the favor and encourage you to do so as well. Smarter minds make a smarter world.

I'll consult the Magic 8-ball:


You still want BTC500. That you want BTC250 in the form of bitcoin and BTC250 in the form of sunshine, rainbows, warm fuzzies, and cheers of AMAZING COMPANY projected upon your self esteem doesn't much change that you are asking for BTC500 in value. That is unless you consider your own stake worthless or at least worth less than BTC250 yourself.


Of course things have costs. Covering the costs of things you can not self finance is a motivation for seeking investment, generally in exchange for seeking or receiving investment some sort of return in the form of dividends would be ideal. At a minimum though shares should represent some sort of transferable equity.

And though you think offering:


and


means, you aren't offering a reasonable market for these shares.

Additionally having to hope into eternity that your forum account is never hacked/phished or otherwise compromised Further hope is needed that you are consistently honest in your dealing through PMs. Hope is a poor substitute for security and verifiability.

There are numerous other problems with your proposal. Read moar, study moar, and stop presenting the arrangement of the bits of corn in your turds as investment opportunities until then.

I suppose you are correct. I have no real interest in discussing or critiquing a document I did not generate. The document in question is little more than a blog post. Perhaps if others want to discuss it, the thread it exists on is a more suitable venue.


Thank you for your opinion and concerns. I find it regretful that you were not inspired to confidence by pilot website. It appears that in your case it has failed to achieve one of it's goals. I would correct you that the IPO cost of outstanding shares is 250BTC, not 500BTC as you quoted. At current market rates this is slightly more than $30,000. Web development and deployment is not free, nor is the acquisition of existing platforms. The development of SatoshiSquared.com alone exceeded $5000, and the additional projects will require even more. I believe the 250BTC solicitation to be a reasonable sum to finance the scale of projects we would like to move forward on. Perhaps later one of our future projects will inspire more confidence in you and you will decide to invest at that point.

I believe by argument they mean you note what "sharp edges" exist and you suggest remedies both general and specific. There would probably be two possible outcomes: you make a case for actual improvements and they might be considered or you muck that certain things like identifying yourself or identifying actors in the bitcoin space don't feel or seem necessary.

You are rightly drawing criticism because instead of answering concerns with arguments constructed from reason and cohesive thoughts you post crap like:


This. You have one pseudogambling website where looking at the front page the income stream seems as though it may be reasonably be measured in Satoshis. Maybe with gambling you might be able to create more serious revenue streams, but based on your sample site http://satoshisquared.com/ your single example portfolio of work doesn't do much to offer confidence that you could deliver the large number of sites you hint at, any of which might have substantial revenue much less profit.

So instead you come and beg the forum for BTC500. Why BTC500? Maybe it is a nice even round number? The problem with it though is it doesn't seem like any sort of market influences have shaped it hinting that its origins may be rectal in nature. If you can't see the problem with asking for somewhere between a Corvette and a Dodge Viper's worth of BTC at today's prices in exchange for you offering the BTC equivalent of a fart app, vague promises, and polite dismissals.

It appears you are looking for arguments where none exist. If you have specific questions that you would like to offer up, I would be more than happy to attempt to address them.

If you wish to bring an argument, bring an argument. Vaguely disagreeing with unnamed points achieves nothing other than making it look like indeed, you did not read (and by read I mean process and understand the words individually and as a whole, not mindlessly scan) the thing.


Again, it'd appear you haven't in fact read. This isn't about "styles". This is about sense, about crafting something of value. And no, it's not okay to eschew the proper methods of crafting something, and to slap some mud on a stick with a shiny label and present it to thinking people as something of value. There is absolutely something wrong with that.


Dude, no amount of posturing and weasel wording is going to get you out of the fact that you are soliciting money from people for something without a business plan, without any names or reputations that can be researched, without detailed product ideas, and without a structure even remotely resembling a real IPO (all of these are required). Yes, I know that plenty of asshats on these forums have attempted the same. That doesn't at all change what it is, which again, is begging. That's not a suggestion.


When you make such assertions without the goods to even remotely back them up there is no reason to believe you're after anything but swindling the occasional newb or errant idiot. And no, those errant idiots don't comprise "the community", and no, swindling them doesn't mean anything has been a success, other than yet another point of shame for Bitcoin. Is that what you want to be a part of?

I certainly do regret that some people may be put off by my tone. And it is certainly possible that there is a potential to lose investment because of it. That said, I feel it best to speak honestly and not sugar coat things. As with any solicitation of VC funds, you need to know who you are investing with. It is actually my hope that potential investors will gain a clear insight as to how I would behave. That is, addressing all questions and concerns as honestly as possible. I will not "blow smoke up peoples butts" to get investors, and I have little respect for those who do because I consider it dishonest.

To your first point, I must disagree. To declare that a business that does not yet exist "will be" successful would certainly be folly. But to simply state that an existing business is currently successful and should continue to be so in the future is entirely reasonable. I invest in profitable and successful businesses on a daily basis. So do most other investors. When they are clearly profitable and successful, I see no reason for them to be ashamed of saying so. The issue of risk exists in every venture everywhere. While it is my opinion that Gee Unlimited will be successful well into the future, any number of disasters are possible. There is always inherent risk. I was not trying to imply that there was not, although it could have been interpreted that way. If a business needs more operating capital to expand, it is often a good sign. If they need it to stay alive, it is usually not.

To your second point, I most certainly do take suggestions seriously. I agree where appropriate, and discuss or reply with alternative positions when required. I answer questions as plainly and concisely as I can. I would never suggest that I have some sort of moral superiority over potential investors, nor have I ever told them to hit the road. It is a simple fact that not every investment suits everyone's portfolios. I do not feel it is inappropriate to simply state that all investments are welcomed, and that if there are investors for whom Gee Unlimited is not a good fit, then that is okay as well, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. No company can be everything to everyone and still be honest. Disagreement does not mean a deaf ear has been turned or concerns ignored. It just means a difference of opinion, which I always welcome so that points can be discussed and the best solutions determined. This reply should stand as a typical example. Your concerns were obviously read, considered, and addressed. They may not be the answers you would have preferred to have gotten, but they are honest ones.

As someone who has actually written and pitched real-world business plans to VCs, experience has taught me that you are striking entirely the wrong tone here.

First off, declaring that your business "will be" successful demonstrates a massive lack of ability to comprehend risk. Nobody asking for VC money can say that. Nobody. Saying that to real VCs would get you laughed out of the room.

Second, you MUST take the suggestions of potential investors seriously.  You ARE begging, don't think yourself morally superior because you use a fancy term like "IPO". If potential investors make a suggestion about what would make them more interested, you'd damn well better listen. What you have done - essentially telling your potential benefactors to go fuck themselves - provides a clear insight as to how you would behave if they actually become investors.

Actually, I read that very post quite some time ago. I did find it somewhat helpful, although I felt it could use a little polish to smooth out the sharp edges. I guess different people have differing styles, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. I initially let slide your suggestion that this offering was more akin to begging than a business since it appeared an off-the-cuff remark. But since you insist on supporting that viewpoint, I would like to point out that no external investment (or begging in your parlance) was required for the initial product. The founders bore the full development and implementation costs. The founders put their own money on the line and did not expect someone else to finance their vaporware, unlike most other groups with big ideas and no capital of their own.

This offering is an opportunity for investors to become part owners in a group of projects, one of which is already completed. They can look at the first one, and decide whether our style and our competency is something they want to be a part of. If they do not, that is fine. If this IPO fails, then the community has spoken and we will continue to produce and develop additional projects on our own, albiet at a much slower pace. Gee Unlimited will succeed with or without additional investment because it is already profitable. Whether others profit from it is up to each of them.

What does http://satoshisquared.com/ provide? Eh just referrals?

Sure, but your suggestion, at least as I understood it, was that several small ideas could somehow be equatable with one big, grand idea, and that this was the basis for your entire effort. Such an equation doesn't work, and before you can argue that they'd be similar in terms of value to shareholders or whatever, you need to listen to what other people here are telling you, and particularly to resolve this:

That is not strictly true. There will be a board of major shareholders, and they MUST approve all investments. The founders are not dictators by any stretch. This is a plan for a company, not a personal empire. We welcome anyone who feels they have the experience to help guide this endeavor to become involved enough to be seated on the board.

The pilot website SatoshiSquared.com was designed specifically as proof of capability of delivery of products. I suppose one could consider this prior work.

We have received offers to purchase shares prior to the IPO but have elected to not respond to them. Reserved offers will be taken first-come-first served beginning at the time listed above. If 50% of the offered shares are reserved in the first week, the IPO will be considered a success and payment addresses will be sent to all reserved parties. The remaining shares and those shares for which no payment is forthcoming will still be available for purchase on a first-come first-served basis until they are exhausted.

During the initial week we will post a daily tally of shares reserved, and from then on a daily tally of shares left, assuming there are any left.

All bitcoins from all share purchases will be placed into a single wallet, and that address will be posted for blockchain verification that the funds have not moved unless approved by board members. This will not be a dividend payment address, but rather an equity address for shareholders to monitor and verify legitimacy of funds. This address will also be the destination for all founder dividends for reinvestment. After 1 month (November 1st 2013) dissolution will be put to shareholders for a vote, with the founders shares not voting on this issue. If a simple majority of shares outstanding votes to dissolve, all shares will be refunded. From this point forward, no shares can be refunded. Once this vote is completed, a board will be selected by the shareholders.

Are any shares sold so far? How much do you need for the IPO to be successful?

Each one is expected to be profitable, but not at the level that would support a stock offering on it's own merits. Few would consider several profitable products from one company as a poor strategy, and suggest that they split each product into a separate company. I am not certain why anyone would advocate such a course of action. Should Amazon split itself into a million companies, one each for every title it sells?

How do you figure a bunch of ideas incapable of making it on their own "add up" to something valuable? When was the last time you ate a bowl of chilled, ground-up pebbles for want of ice cream?

As for the lack of anything like a business plan, it's a shame that your time has been spent verifying the broken notion that begging is having a "company". Have a read, abrasive as it may seem. Your effort to present both sides of the coin is noted, but is ultimately worth nothing in a space already awash in utter crap "investments".

Two good solid ones for development, four others under consideration, and two possible acquisitions. All subject to approval by the board of course.

How many projects would you say that you have ideas or plans for?

It is understandable that some might consider the umbrella as a "slush fund". It is also understandable that one might consider a single offering for each project. That said:

While it is expected that every project produces a profit, that amount will likely not justify a share offering. Not every project is Satoshidice that rakes in millions on it's own. There are many smaller projects with great potential for good profitability that are failing to reach their potential. What Gee Unlimited does is develop them. The value comes from multiple smaller income streams. General Electric makes much more than microwaves. A single product (or website) makes a company vulnerable to disaster. We wish to avoid that trap by increasing the range and variety of income streams by actively purchasing and developing them. This is not an unusual business model outside of the bitcoin realm.

There is an old adage that says that the easiest way to make a million dollars is to figure out how to make a dollar and do it a million times. Satoshidice comes along once in a lifetime, and makes a million itself. But hundreds of good ideas that add up to satoshidice go undeveloped or underdeveloped every single day. Lets develop them.

None of the IPO funds will be spent until a board is seated, and none of it will be spent without the approval of that board. This should have been made clear earlier.

That's not how it works. You propose THOSE investment opportunities, then raise funds for them. You don't raise funds on a company that doesn't need funding so that you might distribute those funds however you deem appropriate.


With respect, we call that a "slush fund", not an "umbrella".

I'm sure the community will be interested in your opportunities if you give them their own IPOs.