So far I'm only aware of one project going through, DealCoin, and while interesting, it still has a long way to prove itself as a good investment.
The Mexico btc exchange seems interesting too.
Topic: [HAVELOCK](SFI) Seedcoin Fund I - page 10. (Read 27249 times)
The Mexico btc exchange seems interesting too.
We are helping Bitcoin startups with attractive businesses prospects and some already profitable. Our structure is quite similar to standard funds whereby a management company helps a fund to find viable and interesting opportunities in a specific sector or industry, in our case, cryptocurrencies.
Except that there is zero basis for imagining you're any better equipped than the average bipedal life form to "help", "find", or otherwise create any sort of value. Managing other people's funds and identifying worthwhile projects are not trivial tasks; they require specific expertise. Not interest, not passion, not "we talked to some guy named Dan and he likes us", expertise. That's what you need to focus on demonstrating. And that, well before you solicit "investments".
See here.
Korbman's analysis is exactly what I'd like clarification on from Seedcoin. You've provided a list of a handful of companies with their stated goals, but nothing about the projected timeframes for deployment, possible market, or profitability. Can we get some numbers here, or at least more details?
And can we have any details about how/when dividends will be issued?
And can we have any details about how/when dividends will be issued?
I've bought Neo&Bee below IPO price so I'm in the green atm.
Lol, many people made a bundle trading Labcoin. I was tempted to jump in on the fun, since the swings were so deliciously predictable -- that was a great stock to trade. Nonetheless, if not for the endless supply of greater fools, investing in Labcoin would have been pointless -- it's currently trading at 0.
I'm not suggesting that money couldn't be made trading in failing companies. It can, it's being done every day, and it's loads of fun.
I've pondered a lot about investing Neo&Bee and I think it will very successful. I've looked into it from many angles. Mark my words, this particular stock will perform very well. It can capture growth of Bitcoin and some. Hadn't been for the sudden shutdown of btc-to and bitfunder, all shares would have sold by now.
I've bought Neo&Bee below IPO price so I'm in the green atm.
Lol, many people made a bundle trading Labcoin. I was tempted to jump in on the fun, since the swings were so deliciously predictable -- that was a great stock to trade. Nonetheless, if not for the endless supply of greater fools, investing in Labcoin would have been pointless -- it's currently trading at 0.
I'm not suggesting that money couldn't be made trading in failing companies. It can, it's being done every day, and it's loads of fun.
...
First, please understand that i'm not endorsing government regulation. It is sufficient to acknowledge that it exists to realize the enormous differences between fiat and bitcoin ETFs. Handing over your cash to any stranger who asks for it can't be justified with "A bank teller could steal it from you too."
First, please understand that i'm not endorsing government regulation. It is sufficient to acknowledge that it exists to realize the enormous differences between fiat and bitcoin ETFs. Handing over your cash to any stranger who asks for it can't be justified with "A bank teller could steal it from you too."
Most important question that everyone should ask themselves in the Bitcoin space is very simple one: "Would it be in their best interest to scam me or not?" or "Do they have more to win by scamming or by playing fair."
In some cases answer is yes and in some cases answer is no.
The second question should be "what's the market like?" Today's answer is "It's in a full-throttle nosedive."
I've made a couple of investments so far in Bitcoin/crypto companies via Bitcoin exchanges and I'm pleased with them so far. One of them is in Neo&Bee, another one is in BuyAHash on the old Litecoinglobal exchange. I've also picked up some Litecoininvest shares, which has very dedicated team behind it.
Neo&Bee and BuyAHash are in the green and I'm down a bit on litecoininvest. Overall it has been more profitable than keeping the money in Bitcoin.
NEOBEE is not in the green. Being in the green implies profit, while NEOBEE is trading at IPO prices. Factor in the fees, slippage & the fact that millions of shares are available at IPO prices, and you're losing money.
BuyAHash, as i understand it, is a Litecoin, not bitcoin security. Not familiar with it, though if it's a litecoin-denominated, it is not relevant.
Same for Litecoininvest.
Please remember that we're dealing with bitcoin, not litecoin.
I've bought Neo&Bee below IPO price so I'm in the green atm.
Quote
(1) and (2) are mutually exclusive. Either the IPO coin are distributed to the startups, or they are in Havelock's wallet, never both.
Bitcoins are transferred to the startups but the company shares are held by the fund so (1) and (2) are intrinsically associated to this transfer of coins for equity. As a unit holder you provide bitcoin to the startups and you get shares in return, the difference here is that these shares are held by the fund.
Holding shares != holding bitcoins. If the money is given to the startups, it is no longer held by Havelock, thus making (1) and (2) mutually exclusive.
...
First, please understand that i'm not endorsing government regulation. It is sufficient to acknowledge that it exists to realize the enormous differences between fiat and bitcoin ETFs. Handing over your cash to any stranger who asks for it can't be justified with "A bank teller could steal it from you too."
First, please understand that i'm not endorsing government regulation. It is sufficient to acknowledge that it exists to realize the enormous differences between fiat and bitcoin ETFs. Handing over your cash to any stranger who asks for it can't be justified with "A bank teller could steal it from you too."
Most important question that everyone should ask themselves in the Bitcoin space is very simple one: "Would it be in their best interest to scam me or not?" or "Do they have more to win by scamming or by playing fair."
In some cases answer is yes and in some cases answer is no.
The second question should be "what's the market like?" Today's answer is "It's in a full-throttle nosedive."
I've made a couple of investments so far in Bitcoin/crypto companies via Bitcoin exchanges and I'm pleased with them so far. One of them is in Neo&Bee, another one is in BuyAHash on the old Litecoinglobal exchange. I've also picked up some Litecoininvest shares, which has very dedicated team behind it.
Neo&Bee and BuyAHash are in the green and I'm down a bit on litecoininvest. Overall it has been more profitable than keeping the money in Bitcoin.
NEOBEE is not in the green. Being in the green implies profit, while NEOBEE is trading at IPO prices. Factor in the fees, slippage & the fact that millions of shares are available at IPO prices, and you're losing money.
BuyAHash, as i understand it, is a Litecoin, not bitcoin security. Not familiar with it, though if it's a litecoin-denominated, it is not relevant.
Same for Litecoininvest.
Please remember that we're dealing with bitcoin, not litecoin.
...
First, please understand that i'm not endorsing government regulation. It is sufficient to acknowledge that it exists to realize the enormous differences between fiat and bitcoin ETFs. Handing over your cash to any stranger who asks for it can't be justified with "A bank teller could steal it from you too."
First, please understand that i'm not endorsing government regulation. It is sufficient to acknowledge that it exists to realize the enormous differences between fiat and bitcoin ETFs. Handing over your cash to any stranger who asks for it can't be justified with "A bank teller could steal it from you too."
Most important question that everyone should ask themselves in the Bitcoin space is very simple one: "Would it be in their best interest to scam me or not?" or "Do they have more to win by scamming or by playing fair."
In some cases answer is yes and in some cases answer is no.
The second question should be "what's the market like?" Today's answer is "It's in a full-throttle nosedive."
I've made a couple of investments so far in Bitcoin/crypto companies via Bitcoin exchanges and I'm pleased with them so far. One of them is in Neo&Bee, another one is in BuyAHash on the old Litecoinglobal exchange. I've also picked up some Litecoininvest shares, which has very dedicated team behind it.
Neo&Bee and BuyAHash are in the green and I'm down a bit on litecoininvest. Overall it has been more profitable than keeping the money in Bitcoin.
Quote
(1) and (2) are mutually exclusive. Either the IPO coin are distributed to the startups, or they are in Havelock's wallet, never both.
Bitcoins are transferred to the startups but the company shares are held by the fund so (1) and (2) are intrinsically associated to this transfer of coins for equity. As a unit holder you provide bitcoin to the startups and you get shares in return, the difference here is that these shares are held by the fund.
...
First, please understand that i'm not endorsing government regulation. It is sufficient to acknowledge that it exists to realize the enormous differences between fiat and bitcoin ETFs. Handing over your cash to any stranger who asks for it can't be justified with "A bank teller could steal it from you too."
First, please understand that i'm not endorsing government regulation. It is sufficient to acknowledge that it exists to realize the enormous differences between fiat and bitcoin ETFs. Handing over your cash to any stranger who asks for it can't be justified with "A bank teller could steal it from you too."
Most important question that everyone should ask themselves in the Bitcoin space is very simple one: "Would it be in their best interest to scam me or not?" or "Do they have more to win by scamming or by playing fair."
In some cases answer is yes and in some cases answer is no.
The second question should be "what's the market like?" Today's answer is "It's in a full-throttle nosedive."
...This is how many ETFs and Index Funds operate, Crumbs...
This is how fiat ETFs operate.
With fiat, there are meddlesome government regulations and armed government thugs to enforce those regulations.
Bitcoin has nothing similar, so comparing fiat ETFs to bitcoin-based ones makes no sense. Bitcoin investors can't count on someone else making laws & enforcing those laws to ensure that they aren't ripped of.
Bitcoin relies on cryptography and a powerful network to circumvent the problem of trust. This doesn't imply that this problem magically disappears for everything touched by bitcoin. It's very much there with bitcoin securities, as has been shown again and again. That's why many fiat constructs can not simply be aped in bitcoin.
You mean like the MF Global case?
Where were the government thugs when people needed them? latest development in that story http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/mf-global-managers-corzine-to-appeal-100-payout-ruling.htmlFirst, please understand that i'm not endorsing government regulation. It is sufficient to acknowledge that it exists to realize the enormous differences between fiat and bitcoin ETFs. Handing over your cash to any stranger who asks for it can't be justified with "A bank teller could steal it from you too."
Most important question that everyone should ask themselves in this Bitcoin investment space is very simple one: "Would it be in their best interest to scam me or not?" or "Do they have more to win by scamming or by playing fair."
In some cases answer is yes and in other cases answer is no.
Quote
I think i get it, i'll try to put it in my own words:
1. I hand over my money.
2. You take a management fee, and invest my money in another company.
3. ...or not -- that's left up to you.
4. If the companies you invest in make money, we both get rich.
5. If they all lose money, i go broke and you still get paid.
6. If the above terms are still not to your liking, you reserve the right to change them at any time.
7. I also take a risk on you or your Panamanian exchange walking off with my coin. It would be crass to suggest such a thing anywhere but in bitcoin securities. In bitcoin securities, on the other hand, i would be insane not to.
People who were not directly scammed by asset issuers were scammed by the exchanges. Havelock, the exchange you are associated with, has exactly zero assets trading above IPO price. None.
*If any of the above is inaccurate, i welcome your corrections.
1. I hand over my money.
2. You take a management fee, and invest my money in another company.
3. ...or not -- that's left up to you.
4. If the companies you invest in make money, we both get rich.
5. If they all lose money, i go broke and you still get paid.
6. If the above terms are still not to your liking, you reserve the right to change them at any time.
7. I also take a risk on you or your Panamanian exchange walking off with my coin. It would be crass to suggest such a thing anywhere but in bitcoin securities. In bitcoin securities, on the other hand, i would be insane not to.
People who were not directly scammed by asset issuers were scammed by the exchanges. Havelock, the exchange you are associated with, has exactly zero assets trading above IPO price. None.
*If any of the above is inaccurate, i welcome your corrections.
Hi Crumbs,
yes the decision to invest has to remain ours otherwise our service is not so clear nor in conformity to how we present it. The management fee is actually helping us providing services to the startups to make sure they do succeed. As I mentioned above some of the startups are in profit mode but of course as with any investments there is always a probability for some to lose money at any given time. When you say 'we both get rich' let me point out to the fact that 100% of the startup equity is held by the fund1, this means if the companies make money the unit holders are in first line to get dividends or benefit from the appreciation of such equity. In this particular case the bitcoin will be transferred soon after the IPO to the target companies and should not remain long on Havelockinvestments2 wallets which I believe have proven safe since they started operating and the Panamanian fund is licensed. Everyone knows reputation is the first asset in the bitcoin securities world and of course this offering is a clear sign of trust on our behalf for the Panama Fund3 but I leave it up to each potential investor to assess any risk related to buying units via Havelockinvestments.com.
(1) and (2) are mutually exclusive. Either the IPO coin are distributed to the startups, or they are in Havelock's wallet, never both.
(3) Considering the failure of Havelock's own IPO & the failure of other recent offering -- 7C (the multimillion-valued broken flash game site), i'd say that trust is relatively easy to come by.
...This is how many ETFs and Index Funds operate, Crumbs...
This is how fiat ETFs operate.
With fiat, there are meddlesome government regulations and armed government thugs to enforce those regulations.
Bitcoin has nothing similar, so comparing fiat ETFs to bitcoin-based ones makes no sense. Bitcoin investors can't count on someone else making laws & enforcing those laws to ensure that they aren't ripped of.
Bitcoin relies on cryptography and a powerful network to circumvent the problem of trust. This doesn't imply that this problem magically disappears for everything touched by bitcoin. It's very much there with bitcoin securities, as has been shown again and again. That's why many fiat constructs can not simply be aped in bitcoin.
You mean like the MF Global case?
Where were the government thugs when people needed them? latest development in that story http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/mf-global-managers-corzine-to-appeal-100-payout-ruling.htmlFirst, please understand that i'm not endorsing government regulation. It is sufficient to acknowledge that it exists to realize the enormous differences between fiat and bitcoin ETFs. Handing over your cash to any stranger who asks for it can't be justified with "A bank teller could steal it from you too."
Hi Korbman,
Re. the startups I will reply a bit later but I will also give a chance to their founders to reply, so getting back to you soon on this.
---------------
Re. these issues:
my answer:
SFI is the Fund name, the company name is SHL so yes SHL = SFI we just use SFI to make it clear this is a fund. SML is a different company, it is the fund management company managing the funds raised by SHL. As you may know a 'fund' is just a company holding other companies' shares so it needs a management company to manage those funds.
re. the management fees they are set at 11% so startups will receive 89% of the amount raised so BTC1,780 in total.
-------------
All the startup business plans/presentations have been provided to Havelockinvestments.com I will arrange it so that potential investors of SFI will have access to these asap.
Re. the startups I will reply a bit later but I will also give a chance to their founders to reply, so getting back to you soon on this.
---------------
Re. these issues:
Quote
> I see there are 3 entities associated with this project; SFI (the "Fund"), SHL (the "Issuer"), and SML (the "Management"). Am I to presume all 3 are the same company? I ask because the prospectus notes (under Offering Structure) that SHL is offering 10,000,000 units (20% on December 12th, 80% sometime within the next 365 days), but also that:
Quote
The offering on December 12th, 2013 will represent twenty percent (20%) of the units of the SFI (total units 10,000,000). [...]
Quote
The offering on December 12th, 2013 will represent twenty percent (20%) of the units of the SFI (total units 10,000,000). [...]
my answer:
SFI is the Fund name, the company name is SHL so yes SHL = SFI we just use SFI to make it clear this is a fund. SML is a different company, it is the fund management company managing the funds raised by SHL. As you may know a 'fund' is just a company holding other companies' shares so it needs a management company to manage those funds.
re. the management fees they are set at 11% so startups will receive 89% of the amount raised so BTC1,780 in total.
-------------
All the startup business plans/presentations have been provided to Havelockinvestments.com I will arrange it so that potential investors of SFI will have access to these asap.
@Seedcoin
You keep messing quoting posts and make people think those are actually your words not Crumbs'.
You keep messing quoting posts and make people think those are actually your words not Crumbs'.
Quote
I think i get it, i'll try to put it in my own words:
1. I hand over my money.
2. You take a management fee, and invest my money in another company.
3. ...or not -- that's left up to you.
4. If the companies you invest in make money, we both get rich.
5. If they all lose money, i go broke and you still get paid.
6. If the above terms are still not to your liking, you reserve the right to change them at any time.
7. I also take a risk on you or your Panamanian exchange walking off with my coin. It would be crass to suggest such a thing anywhere but in bitcoin securities. In bitcoin securities, on the other hand, i would be insane not to.
People who were not directly scammed by asset issuers were scammed by the exchanges. Havelock, the exchange you are associated with, has exactly zero assets trading above IPO price. None.
*If any of the above is inaccurate, i welcome your corrections.
1. I hand over my money.
2. You take a management fee, and invest my money in another company.
3. ...or not -- that's left up to you.
4. If the companies you invest in make money, we both get rich.
5. If they all lose money, i go broke and you still get paid.
6. If the above terms are still not to your liking, you reserve the right to change them at any time.
7. I also take a risk on you or your Panamanian exchange walking off with my coin. It would be crass to suggest such a thing anywhere but in bitcoin securities. In bitcoin securities, on the other hand, i would be insane not to.
People who were not directly scammed by asset issuers were scammed by the exchanges. Havelock, the exchange you are associated with, has exactly zero assets trading above IPO price. None.
*If any of the above is inaccurate, i welcome your corrections.
Hi Crumbs,
yes the decision to invest has to remain ours otherwise our service is not so clear nor in conformity to how we present it. The management fee is actually helping us providing services to the startups to make sure they do succeed. As I mentioned above some of the startups are in profit mode but of course as with any investments there is always a probability for some to lose money at any given time. When you say 'we both get rich' let me point out to the fact that 100% of the startup equity is held by the fund, this means if the companies make money the unit holders are in first line to get dividends or benefit from the appreciation of such equity. In this particular case the bitcoin will be transferred soon after the IPO to the target companies and should not remain long on Havelockinvestments wallets which I believe have proven safe since they started operating and the Panamanian fund is licensed. Everyone knows reputation is the first asset in the bitcoin securities world and of course this offering is a clear sign of trust on our behalf for the Panama Fund but I leave it up to each potential investor to assess any risk related to buying units via Havelockinvestments.com.
...This is how many ETFs and Index Funds operate, Crumbs...
This is how fiat ETFs operate.
With fiat, there are meddlesome government regulations and armed government thugs to enforce those regulations.
Bitcoin has nothing similar, so comparing fiat ETFs to bitcoin-based ones makes no sense. Bitcoin investors can't count on someone else making laws & enforcing those laws to ensure that they aren't ripped of.
Bitcoin relies on cryptography and a powerful network to circumvent the problem of trust. This doesn't imply that this problem magically disappears for everything touched by bitcoin. It's very much there with bitcoin securities, as has been shown again and again. That's why many fiat constructs can not simply be aped in bitcoin.
You mean like the MF Global case?
Where were the government thugs when people needed them? latest development in that story http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/mf-global-managers-corzine-to-appeal-100-payout-ruling.html ...This is how many ETFs and Index Funds operate, Crumbs...
This is how fiat ETFs operate.
With fiat, there are meddlesome government regulations and armed government thugs to enforce those regulations.
Bitcoin has nothing similar, so comparing fiat ETFs to bitcoin-based ones makes no sense. Bitcoin investors can't count on someone else making laws & enforcing those laws to ensure that they aren't ripped of.
Bitcoin relies on cryptography and a powerful network to circumvent the problem of trust. This doesn't imply that this problem magically disappears for everything touched by bitcoin. It's very much there with bitcoin securities, as has been shown again and again. That's why many fiat constructs can not simply be aped in bitcoin.
..,
Hi Crumbs,
We are helping Bitcoin startups with attractive businesses prospects and some already profitable. Our structure is quite similar to standard funds whereby a management company helps a fund to find viable and interesting opportunities in a specific sector or industry, in our case, cryptocurrencies. A fund is mainly a company holding other companies shares so this is why the management team is quite important in the startup selection and investment process and management of the fund. However, I think you should mainly look at the startups since they will be the recipient of most of the bitcoins raised, a small portion of the funds raised will go towards ensuring we can keep providing services to the startups and their founders. The Bitcoin startups are located in various countries around the world and are responding to different needs or solving specific problems in the bitcoin ecosystem. Our company's value is actually a completely different topic which is not part of this IPO, the BTC10,000 we totally wish to raise - over a few offerings - is the amount of bitcoin the fund will invest. The unit holders will hold 100% of the fund. The fund will itself owns shares of the startups so the BTC10,000 should be considered as the available funds to invest in startups and the profit comes from the profit of these startups, and possibly dividends of these startups. Instead of buying units of seven bitcoin companies through seven offerings you have the possibility to buy units of a fund which plans to invest in seven startups (for now) and many more later.
I hope this is clearer, let me know if you have any more questions.
thanks
Hi Crumbs,
We are helping Bitcoin startups with attractive businesses prospects and some already profitable. Our structure is quite similar to standard funds whereby a management company helps a fund to find viable and interesting opportunities in a specific sector or industry, in our case, cryptocurrencies. A fund is mainly a company holding other companies shares so this is why the management team is quite important in the startup selection and investment process and management of the fund. However, I think you should mainly look at the startups since they will be the recipient of most of the bitcoins raised, a small portion of the funds raised will go towards ensuring we can keep providing services to the startups and their founders. The Bitcoin startups are located in various countries around the world and are responding to different needs or solving specific problems in the bitcoin ecosystem. Our company's value is actually a completely different topic which is not part of this IPO, the BTC10,000 we totally wish to raise - over a few offerings - is the amount of bitcoin the fund will invest. The unit holders will hold 100% of the fund. The fund will itself owns shares of the startups so the BTC10,000 should be considered as the available funds to invest in startups and the profit comes from the profit of these startups, and possibly dividends of these startups. Instead of buying units of seven bitcoin companies through seven offerings you have the possibility to buy units of a fund which plans to invest in seven startups (for now) and many more later.
I hope this is clearer, let me know if you have any more questions.
thanks
I think i get it, i'll try to put it in my own words:
1. I hand over my money.
2. You take a management fee, and invest my money in another company.
3. ...or not -- that's left up to you.
4. If the companies you invest in make money, we both get rich.
5. If they all lose money, i go broke and you still get paid.
This is how many ETFs and Index Funds operate, Crumbs. They take a management fee and invest your money into different companies. They basically provide you a service, easier way to diversify by investing in just one company.
These start-ups are also hard to get in via conventional means, most likely, so it also provides a way for people to invest early on.
Regarding the exchanges; I'd feel more confident if Havelock would allow the company to withdraw the proceeds immediately, not gradually. Saying it's a fail-safe to protect investors is stupid because an investor should perform due diligence before investing. If people don't trust the company, they won't invest in the first place.
This makes Havelock very attractive target for hackers and increases their incentives to just turn the lights off and walk away with a huge amount of BTC from several companies who didn't get to gradually spend all their IPO funds. This recent change in policy of theirs is bit disconcerting (and it is a recent policy change by the way).
Jump to: