Topic: Havelock Investments - Exchange feedback/comments - page 9. (Read 248097 times)

Havelock rulezz  

Although I would have appreciated a little bit more transparency regarding the concerns raised by Clobered09.

I have been on havelockinvestments since the launch of NEOBEE on the site, and as an investor, I am very happy with Havelock vs BTCT / BitFunder back in the days.

Thought I'd post this here because I think it's important for investors to know.  I'm writing an article on crypto-investing for the end of law school, and I've talked to a few people on the issuer and intermediary side to get some perspectives, including Havelock.  So far, Havelock is the only one who has tried to double down on made up bs.  Everyone else gives their first argument about legality, most probably actually believing it, then for those that are clearly mistaken, they then respond with the practicality and libertarian argument.  Nothing wrong with that, they're not being deceptive or fraudulent, anyone that wanted to press them could have found this out and made their investment decision accordingly. 

Havelock, on the other hand, not only continues to maintain their legality in the face of crushing evidence against them, they then claimed to have sent my queries off to "legal" and that their responses were a lawyer's response.  They claimed their legal department, not a layman, had studied the law and that because bitcoin wasn't legal tender, it couldn't be considered an investment.  This is a common mistake non-lawyers make, Johns and prostitutes try it all the time, to no avail, but no lawyer practicing in securities law would make that mistake.  The first three words in the definition of financial transaction in the Panamanian law decree governing securities are "incluye todo valor" meaning "includes anything of value."  (For the curious: the first 140ish pages of this are the original law decree, there have been amendments, but none affecting this analysis: http://www.asamblea.gob.pa/APPS/LEGISPAN/PDF_GACETAS/1990/1999/23837_1999.PDF). 

I think most of us agree that the laws governing investment make it hard for smaller investors to take part, and crypto-investing, whether legal or not, lets consenting adults make their own decisions about what to do with their money.  But I think we can also agree that nothing excuses fraud or deceit, and that's what Havelock seems to have offered up.  Just another piece of information for those considering leaving their money with this exchange, the free market works best when participants aren't shackled by government or ignorance. 

That is how it was done before. Now that there is a FAQ, (in which it IS listed) there may be another way.

The only way I found to do this was to go to the login page and use the forgot password prompt.  A little unclassy i'll admit but couldn't find another way ?

This may be obvious and I'm just missing it.

Where does one change their password?

What does the selection of public portfolio achieve?

ugh. times like... right now...

but yes, overall function is good - when it's working.

Other than the time(s) when not accessible I have been quite pleased with the overall quality of this exchange.  Not to mention overall quality of listed assets!  Keep up the good work!

To add theatrical suspense.

It's to the exchange to decide whether they feel it's in the best interest to allow them access. I have my opinion you have yours.

Recently as a result of bot interference I've witnessed larger trades being taken off the exchange and offered privately; an indication serious traders have no interest in playing in the bot kiddie pool when it comes to making large muscle movements. These aren't highly traded NASDAQ level 2 stock inputs where bots can hide in the weeds and the traders plow through them. IMHO the bots are sufficiently prevalent to push large players off the exchange and look for private trades.

You do realise that bots are programmed by humans that tell them what to do, right?
Also do you realise that you can't really prevent a bot from being created, even if you do not offer specific APIs?
Finally, have you considered that there might be other ways to achieve the desired effect, other than the (not feasable anyway) "banning the bots"?

Because bots don't buy and bots don't sell. They fish for humans who buy and sell therefore add no volume to the market.

Bots retreat from the trade price at any opportunity thus widen the spread to remain lowest or highest only when obtaining their predetermined spread. The spread is in the bots best interest but it's not in the interest of the equity as an increase in the spread destabilizes confidence in the humans who make the actual trades. The end result of this artificial gap is less liquidity and fewer trades.

Bots are annoyance to those who truly are the market, the buyers and sellers when attempting to enter reasonable bids/offers. Allowing them to operate gives the perception of an immaturity of the exchange and reduces confidence in traders who end up feeling manipulated.

Why.

Block access to trading bots.

Allow us to enter stop loss orders.

I'm interested in some of the investment opportunities offered through Havelock, but I'm a little concerned.  Your organization refers to initial offerings as "IPO's", suggesting that you view these as publicly traded securities, but Havelock is not a licensed SRO in Panama, and these securities are not listed on the exchanges of any organization that is so licensed.  You also seem to make the offerings available to effectively anonymous investors, for amounts below the minimum investment level, and to more than 50 investors, which would inherently disqualify the offerings from any exclusion to the public registration requirements.  Despite this, none of the securities you offer are registered with SMV.  In fact, it seems the only related entity that is registered at all is "The Panama Fund, S.A.," but such a registration would not seem to absolve Havelock of its registration obligations or its licensure requirements under the securities laws of Panama or the promulgated rules of the Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores. 

What is the legal theory under which the 'exchange' operates without registering as such and creating and licensing an SRO component?  I'd like to believe this is compliant with the law, and I'd really like to invest, but I'm hesitant to put my money into something without understanding the legal ramifications of such investment.

Option to lock a wallet address for withdrawals would be enough for me.

Can I request an IP lock option and logging of account access (both options as per blockchain.info).

Also, all withdrawals or moving of shares within the system to be confirmed by both 2fa and email. Email confirmation should be required, or at least on by default.

Furthermore, proof of each user's funds on the blockchain at all times - see gmaxwell's suggestion or use another blockchain based method. External security audit on security and cold storage methods?

Security on Havelock is far from what it could be and for it to be trusted given other episodes this really should be high priority. It would also allow more users to come on board and more trades to happen.

It's time users pushed exchanges hard to get these things done. Some are harder than others but essentially there is no excuse. If they aren't being done, that would be worrying.

This is not a criticism of havelock as all such services have some growing up to do, but I am sure we would all like to know how security is being beefed up and have evidence that no fractional reserve is being used.

Had a password saved in the browser, logged just fine all this time, now today it returned me an error stating that my password is incorrect. Had both, 2FA and region lock enabled. Restored password... logged back just fine.

You may want to have some information regarding the mechanics of dividend payment somewhere.

It CAN change, but rarely does... Smart money reloads the page to double check before sending