Lol, this is ridiculous.
Big Shareholder receive insider info and vote, small receive nothing because they're too small to vote anyway...
I was going to invest... thanks for letting me know how things works under the hood ! Good luck selling the remaining shares
Havelock, aren't you supposed to be just the platform of exchange ? So you're a shareholder too ? You receive info about IPO beforehand ? Conflict of interest ?
Topic: [HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit) - page 104. (Read 565833 times)
With 12'000 shares sold in this (I)PO, PETA will hash at about 1'200TH/s, and we will have to invest about 900 btc more.
That means no dividends on 6.6. (300 btc is in reinvestment fund from last week, and I think 1200TH will mine another 600 in two weeks).
Dividends are then starting from 13.6.
I'm still not sure in what ratio ??
That means no dividends on 6.6. (300 btc is in reinvestment fund from last week, and I think 1200TH will mine another 600 in two weeks).
Dividends are then starting from 13.6.
I'm still not sure in what ratio ??
Cryptx, are you going to buy the IPO units remaining before the 31st?
So there is apparently 9009 shares left (at present time to this post) to the second IPO @ 0.09750000 btc per share. With that in mind and being that it is (at present) the 28th of May... It is safe to say (unless big buyers start rolling in) that we are not going to fully sell this IPO and I would bet that we would not get below 8000 share left (2000 sold).
With all this said, what would be added to the pool if we do not sell this IPO? I take it we wont be reaching our 1500th/s? At Present we are hashing at 1.2ph/s (1h interval). However, I do understand that we will still be reaching our 15gh per share, but I'm hoping that we get the pool size up to keep up with the ever rising difficulty. Especially if we don't start receiving our dividends soon. Or would this really be a concern? Anyone have good knowledge about this?
With all this said, what would be added to the pool if we do not sell this IPO? I take it we wont be reaching our 1500th/s? At Present we are hashing at 1.2ph/s (1h interval). However, I do understand that we will still be reaching our 15gh per share, but I'm hoping that we get the pool size up to keep up with the ever rising difficulty. Especially if we don't start receiving our dividends soon. Or would this really be a concern? Anyone have good knowledge about this?
I'm looking forward to reaching 5%! That would be one heck of a dividend income! 
It was passed unanimously 60%-0%. But you knew that already since you voted, or did you?
Enough with accusations. The market was open for several days prior to this offering. If you wanted to sell your units you had plenty of time as the price was risng. If you still want to sell PM us and we will try to find you a buyer.
Enough with accusations. The market was open for several days prior to this offering. If you wanted to sell your units you had plenty of time as the price was risng. If you still want to sell PM us and we will try to find you a buyer.
Where is the evidences that these those who owne the more than 5% received this informations?. It is only your word so far!!
Supposedlly there are maximumme of 30 shareholder who see this informations!
Perhaps Nobody owns more than 5%? Could this be the convenient excuse to escape the 'ALL shares have the voting rights' clause!!
And all are looking at each other with shifty eyes -_- to see who are the ones who have 5% or more. it cannot be themselfes so who can it be?. who can prove this?
What man can step forward to explain otherwise!!!
Why do we hear about this only this days
cryptx or havelock were silent on this subject till now.And above all where in the contract was stated that only the shareholders that owns more than 5% have the right to vote?
You say that I'm making accusation but I'm just asking questions. If you have an answer please do share it, but don't say to me (and I quote) "enough". Is this your final atitude?
ok, go ahead and vote. you can even write it out on a peice of paper if you want.
Another very important question:
Why You inform about changes before only some shareholders some not?
I someone want to buy some shares of this PM me.
Why You inform about changes before only some shareholders some not?
I someone want to buy some shares of this PM me.
It was passed unanimously 60%-0%. But you knew that already since you voted, or did you?
Enough with accusations. The market was open for several days prior to this offering. If you wanted to sell your units you had plenty of time as the price was risng. If you still want to sell PM us and we will try to find you a buyer.
Enough with accusations. The market was open for several days prior to this offering. If you wanted to sell your units you had plenty of time as the price was risng. If you still want to sell PM us and we will try to find you a buyer.
Where is the evidences that these those who owne the more than 5% received this informations?. It is only your word so far!!
Supposedlly there are maximumme of 30 shareholder who see this informations!
Perhaps Nobody owns more than 5%? Could this be the convenient excuse to escape the 'ALL shares have the voting rights' clause!!
And all are looking at each other with shifty eyes -_- to see who are the ones who have 5% or more. it cannot be themselfes so who can it be?. who can prove this?
What man can step forward to explain otherwise!!!
Why do we hear about this only this days
cryptx or havelock were silent on this subject till now.And above all where in the contract was stated that only the shareholders that owns more than 5% have the right to vote?
You say that I'm making accusation but I'm just asking questions. If you have an answer please do share it, but don't say to me (and I quote) "enough". Is this your final atitude?
It was passed unanimously 60%-0%. But you knew that already since you voted, or did you?
Enough with accusations. The market was open for several days prior to this offering. If you wanted to sell your units you had plenty of time as the price was risng. If you still want to sell PM us and we will try to find you a buyer.
Enough with accusations. The market was open for several days prior to this offering. If you wanted to sell your units you had plenty of time as the price was risng. If you still want to sell PM us and we will try to find you a buyer.
Where is the evidences that these those who owne the more than 5% received this informations?. It is only your word so far!!
Supposedlly there are maximumme of 30 shareholder who see this informations!
Perhaps Nobody owns more than 5%? Could this be the convenient excuse to escape the 'ALL shares have the voting rights' clause!!
And all are looking at each other with shifty eyes -_- to see who are the ones who have 5% or more. it cannot be themselfes so who can it be?. who can prove this?
What man can step forward to explain otherwise!!!
Why do we hear about this only this days
cryptx or havelock were silent on this subject till now.We would like to inform you that a vote was cast for every change made by cryptx since they have been listed on Havelock. The votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund. If you did not get to vote on changes and you personally own over 5% of the Fund please contact us. Cryptx did not need to bring the vote to a public one when the majority of the unit holders of the Fund voted for those changes. So even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on.
So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at [email protected]
There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.
To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at [email protected]
There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.
To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
Havelock fail again at simple math. You said that the votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund and even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on. How come you reach this conclusion? All by yourself or the whole team of "experts"?
If a motion have passed with 65% - 35% the rest of voters (the reminder of 40% witch didn't vote) could easily change the outcome. So yes, it's a breach of contract, but don't expect havelock to do anything, they are happy with the fees they are getting, despite the fact that people (their clients) loose money.
Now are you going to delete this post where I explain simple math, like you did in the scriptX thread?
It was passed unanimously 60%-0%. But you knew that already since you voted, or did you?
Enough with accusations. The market was open for several days prior to this offering. If you wanted to sell your units you had plenty of time as the price was risng. If you still want to sell PM us and we will try to find you a buyer.
They are not accusations, they are facts!!! And the fact that you consider theam acusations, well... it speak for itself.
You say it was passed unanimously 60%-0%, but you couldn't know this in advance, and you agreed with this anyway (fact not accusation).
With this logic you can very well let only the biggest 60% shareholders from the first 60% biggest holders vote, and then the next biggest 60% and so on until it remains only 1 voter witch is the biggest share holder and the vote will pass or not pass with 100% - 0% and you can say the motion would passed anyway.
Again, I'm not acussing you, I'm just pointing to the facts you did, that is why I quote you. If I say anything that is not true please point to that! You pretend that you could have known in advance the outcome of the vote to claim that I'm making "accusations"?
-edit-
It doesn't matter that the market was open for several days prior to this offering. You can't just breach the terms of a contract and say "If you are not happy with it you can sell"
-edit-
Why 5%? it means that only 30 shareholders own more than 60%?
I means that big shareholders had more information and had inforamtion about changes before announcement!!!! So easly could manipulate!!!!
I means that big shareholders had more information and had inforamtion about changes before announcement!!!! So easly could manipulate!!!!
We would like to inform you that a vote was cast for every change made by cryptx since they have been listed on Havelock. The votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund. If you did not get to vote on changes and you personally own over 5% of the Fund please contact us. Cryptx did not need to bring the vote to a public one when the majority of the unit holders of the Fund voted for those changes. So even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on.
...that's why "big shareholders" list should be published...
We would like to inform you that a vote was cast for every change made by cryptx since they have been listed on Havelock. The votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund. If you did not get to vote on changes and you personally own over 5% of the Fund please contact us. Cryptx did not need to bring the vote to a public one when the majority of the unit holders of the Fund voted for those changes. So even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on.
So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at [email protected]
There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.
To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at [email protected]
There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.
To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
Havelock fail again at simple math. You said that the votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund and even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on. How come you reach this conclusion? All by yourself or the whole team of "experts"?
If a motion have passed with 65% - 35% the rest of voters (the reminder of 40% witch didn't vote) could easily change the outcome. So yes, it's a breach of contract, but don't expect havelock to do anything, they are happy with the fees they are getting, despite the fact that people (their clients) loose money.
Now are you going to delete this post where I explain simple math, like you did in the scriptX thread?
It was passed unanimously 60%-0%. But you knew that already since you voted, or did you?
Enough with accusations. The market was open for several days prior to this offering. If you wanted to sell your units you had plenty of time as the price was risng. If you still want to sell PM us and we will try to find you a buyer.
We would like to inform you that a vote was cast for every change made by cryptx since they have been listed on Havelock. The votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund. If you did not get to vote on changes and you personally own over 5% of the Fund please contact us. Cryptx did not need to bring the vote to a public one when the majority of the unit holders of the Fund voted for those changes. So even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on.
So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at [email protected]
There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.
To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at [email protected]
There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.
To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
Havelock fail again at simple math. You said that the votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund and even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on. How come you reach this conclusion? All by yourself or the whole team of "experts"?
If a motion have passed with 65% - 35% the rest of voters (the reminder of 40% witch didn't vote) could easily change the outcome. So yes, it's a breach of contract, but don't expect havelock to do anything, they are happy with the fees they are getting, despite the fact that people (their clients) loose money.
Now are you going to delete this post where I explain simple math, like you did in the scriptX thread?
...
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
Thank you Havelock. Have you revised your position re. Mintspare yet?
We have been working with Mintspare closely during the past few months and they have a bright future ahead of them.
Or NeoBee?
(lol gone)
Or COG
(lol gone)
Or shares in your own exchange?
(trading @ < 1/2 IPO price)
Your vote of confidence ...doesn't inspire much confidence.
We would like to inform you that a vote was cast for every change made by cryptx since they have been listed on Havelock. The votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund. If you did not get to vote on changes and you personally own over 5% of the Fund please contact us. Cryptx did not need to bring the vote to a public one when the majority of the unit holders of the Fund voted for those changes. So even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on.
So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at [email protected]
There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.
To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at [email protected]
There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.
To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
very interesting, and clarifies a lot, thanks
EDIT: I'm not one to trawl for evidence, but didn't mike claim at some point that he held a massive amount of shares? or was it below 5%?
Cryptx by not allowing a vote on the change in div/reinvestment and the new IPO you have breached the terms of our contract, please at least apologise for this and acknowledge fault or our trust in you will be broken. I know you have to react quickly to take advantage of opportunities in a dynamic marketplace but if you say you will give us a vote you should stick to that. I would also like to hear from a havelock representative on what their policies for dealing with share issuers who breach contracts is.
Easy there, bury your pitchfork!Cryptx has the right to sell remaining shares in a new IPO, as previously stated.
You also need to give CryptX some time to sort stuff out, you can´t demand that because 5 people feel like it, there should be a vote on every small decision every 5 minutes after people bring it up in a forum thread.
Just relax a little and wait until the end of the month. I am sure CryptX will then give a good update and address possible issues some of you seem to be having.
Edit: See, majority votes were held on decisive issues. Thank you havelock for responding, even to questions raised by a small number of people.
We would like to inform you that a vote was cast for every change made by cryptx since they have been listed on Havelock. The votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund. If you did not get to vote on changes and you personally own over 5% of the Fund please contact us. Cryptx did not need to bring the vote to a public one when the majority of the unit holders of the Fund voted for those changes. So even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on.
So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at [email protected]
There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.
To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at [email protected]
There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.
To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.
We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!
Havelock Investments
Cryptx by not allowing a vote on the change in div/reinvestment and the new IPO you have breached the terms of our contract, please at least apologise for this and acknowledge fault or our trust in you will be broken. I know you have to react quickly to take advantage of opportunities in a dynamic marketplace but if you say you will give us a vote you should stick to that. I would also like to hear from a havelock representative on what their policies for dealing with share issuers who breach contracts is.
(as if a new ipo was a day-to-day decision)
Jump to: