Topic: [HAVELOCK] Crypto Financial (CFIG) Official Thread - page 20. (Read 68711 times)

Interesting Idea..  Watching

nubbins, Korbman,

We apologize if our comments came off as condescending. It was not our intention.
Many people have contacted us about our company and were "confused" on what we were doing or offering.
Some thought that we were opening a Bitcoin Bank or would offer "Finance" to Bitcoin users.
We did not refer to any potential investor on the forum in that statement.

Thank you,

Crypto Financial

I was going to say "condescending".



Confusion and lack of momentum are the fault of the offering company, not the investing public.

Ha, well isn't that nice. I like the last bit in the article:

So the reason you've only raised (at the time of writing) 1.7% of your total goal is just because your Business Plan is too long? Don't you think that's a bit...naive?

Conceded.

Speak up, o' ye' enlightened container!

AFAIK lightbox works with/owns Havelock. My question is whether anyone from Havelock has done independent research to verify whether the Panamanian bank is ACTUALLY backing CFIG, or if CFIG just said "here's the name of the bank" and Havelock said "OK!".

I thought that was exactly what lightbox was doing.

Lightbox, what is your affiliation with Havelock?

Has this been verified by Havelock, or is has it just been stated by CFIG and taken at face value?

Yes, a Panamanian bank has provided to Crypto Financial 10m USD, which is essentially held in trust at the bank and cannot be used for day to day operations. Its used as backing for government/regulators in order to secure the required licenses.

YES, we do.

Crypto is also slowly learning that the unprepared get chewed up and spit out 


+1

Depends on the value of that 20%!

The two people I nominate to handle this task are DeathandTaxes and Korbman if they have not already sent PM's asking for the financial spreadsheets.
As veterans on here Korbman with Korb and Co Investments Mining Fund and DeathandTaxes with his long history should help to verify the information.
I trust their independent verification of this asset and believe that if they are given all the information they will be impartial and be able to handle this situation properly. The best way to provide a solution is simply to have trusted members of the community be outside observers and reevaluate the asset.

Lightbox and Havelock while I do trust that you verified the information as investors having other people examining the asset is important, considering the valuation prospective investors will need the financials and the details as well. To avoid trademark secrets being spread and to alleviate concerns trusted members should do this task. The future performance of this assets IPO relies on a sense of trust and requires proper evaluation by the community.

Lets get this out of the way so we can really have an IPO

Freedom

You're ok with buying them a company and getting only 20% of it as a reward (assuming it even succeeds)?  Who's talking about "fair distribution?"  I'm talking about reasonable valuation.

I got not problem with that except the company values itself at $12M and hasn't provided a justification for that valuation.

I'm not against getting more information: balance sheet, specifics about the supporting bank, etc.

But I also think that tallying assets and liabilities would be the wrong way to establish the value of this company.

For instance, the value of the computers that Google owns is probably not a very good measure of the value of Google. The value of Bloomberg is not determined by the number of cubicles they have, and the value of Samsung is not determined by how many chip fabs they have. Their values are (largely) determined by their expected future profit.

The service this company intends to provide is high in demand. And, in my humble opinion, this company has the ability to deliver. So I would much rather be interested to see a more elaborate discussion about the growth potential of this company and their ability to achieve it. That should make it easier to derive a reasonable price for the shares, than from a balance sheet and individual notions of "fair distribution of risk/rewards".

They got a couple of servers a daily news paper and some TVs/Computers and a rented office space!  surely that means its worth $12M+

Who said the bank is "guaranteeing" anything.

Once again that is my whole point.  The only thing the issuer said is "Havelock has the name of the bank backing us".  Backing doesn't mean a guarantee, injection of millions of dollars in capital, or even due diligence.

All that is just stuff that investors are reading into the word "backing".  The founder/offer hasn't substantiated or even made those claims, it is just something assumed.  "Oh backing, well that must mean the bank is guaranteeing it".  Now it is POSSIBLE that is what they mean by backing but it can mean a whole lot less.  I have the "backing" of USPS, I use them to mail company business and they even offer me discounts.  See we have a "strategic enterprise partnership".

Well yeah I would hope so, then again what ARE the assets of the company (in black and white, value by category).  How MUCH higher is the company valued over its assets.  Does the "$12M" company have $8M in tangible assets.  Ok great.  Does the "$12M" company have $100,000 in tangible assets.  Well that isn't as attractive.

Once again all this double speak about banks requiring significant resources, "backing", etc is just double speak.

WHAT ASSETS DOES THE COMPANY HAVE?
WHAT LIABILITIES DOES THE COMPANY HAVE?

How can any valuation be made without those facts.   I guarantee you no angel investor would drop even $50K into a company without a balance sheet which clearly lays out the finances of the company.  If it is complex they are likely going to want to have have the books audited.  Now consider this company is asking for $3M and the most questions aren't answered.  

The value of a company is often higher than the sum of their assets!

I'm assuming the backing bank offers access to legal/financial expertise, software, banking infrastructure, and puts up whatever guarantee is necessary to get their operating license.

If they are providing the guarantee (as I have the impression they are) then they are indeed putting capital at risk too.

Anyway, I'd also like to see an official explanation!

man!
exactly because of that is (was) my question formulated as is