Topic: [HAVELOCK](SFI) Seedcoin Fund I - page 3. (Read 27350 times)

I have not get any mail from you and I had 5 000 shares.

I don't want to be paid half of what I paid for them, I want shares.

Please contact me to do what is necessary about that.

Please note that as of November 4, 2014 SF1 trading has been halted on Havelockinvestments.com

Subsequent to a consultation period initiated by Seedco Management Limited on October 1st the results of which have been posted on Havelockinvestments.com, Seedco Management Limited has decided to proceed with a buy-back and unit to share conversion offer.

Subject to holding more than 2,000 SF1 units at the time of this offer, SF1 unit holders may be considered eligible to convert SF1 Units to Shares.

However, since November 4, we have received a few requests by unit holders holding less than 2,000 SF1 units who have expressed interest to buy additional units in order to reach the 2,000 units minimum threshold for conversion into Shares.

After discussion with Havelock Investments we have decided to allow one time single purpose trades at the fixed price of BTC 0.00045 per unit for those unit holders who may wish to reach the threshold of 2,000 units only. If you are a potential buyer or seller of SF1 units at BTC 0.00045 per unit please contact us at [email protected] mentioning in the subjet “private transaction of SF1 units” before November 12th 12 noon EST. The private transactions will be brokered via Havelock Investments upon our submission of information to them.

Still seems like there should have been more time for market clearing
Out of curiosity how was the share distribution
% of users past the threshold and the % of users below it.

Where do you have information that the for blocks weren't completely sold and that Seedcoin had large amounts of them to be able to  tank the market? I've watched the market daily for the past few months and there was only ever one really large sell off that decimated the market. The rest were a few thousand here and there. Plus the buy walls were never very big. One larger holder of 5000 to 10000 could easily tank the entire market and according to the poll the average of share holders above 2k was 26k shares. So it's not unrealistic that one of the many large shareholders just decided to get out and sell off everything.

I am more concerned that the initial 4 blocks were not subscribed fully by retail Havelock investors like you and me. As a result, the unsubscribed blocks were taken by Seedcoin or Seedcoin-related entities. Since they hold huge quantity of securities, they can dump them at any point in time, and cause a dramatic drop in price. And indeed, when you look at the price chart, you will see several huge dumps, causing a huge drop in price, which did not recover.

If the price can be influenced like that, Seedcoin can certainly manipulate the price for the last 30 days, and the eventual buy-back price.

Seedcoin has yet to comment which IMO, they should.

Regarding the condition to convert Seedcoin units to shares, I hope Seedcoin can consider the request for existing unit holders to buy back the units from Seedcoin at the Seedcoin-determined buy-back price of 0.00045BTC so that the unit holders have an opportunity with the conversion. Yes, they did have an opportunity to buy the units during the consultation window but like that Seedcoin mentioned, it was a consultation with no confirmed decisions made. So now when the decisions had been confirmed, it is fair that existing unit holders with less than 2,000 units should have an option for conversion, through buying back of the shortfall.

Here's the break down however GoCoin negotiations fell through. Here's a site with an easy to read table

http://bitcoin-betting-guide.com/james-cannings-blog/seedcoin-fund-i-update-no-gocoin-what-next/

Here's a more trustworthy site

http://www.coindesk.com/seedcoin-gives-btc-sx-500-bitcoins-funding/

There still is questions of what was being done with the extra 380 bitcoins however when I emailed asking about it they said they were in talks to further fund their current companies even more. Now that is completely unofficial and have no clue if that actually happened. And I wouldn't mind clarification on this as well.

I really recommend emailing the owners of the start ups and ask them how much Seedcoin has helped them as from everything I've seen Seedcoin has done a ton in providing these companies exactly what they need to grow into good large companies. Seedcoin's leadership seems to have provided the networking, advice and I even think legal help to foster these companies during their early stages.

I found that link, yes, but that's the only recent update they've had (outside of twitter apparently, since I don't follow that, but that falls on me). Nothing on their own website.

I misspoke earlier, and thus stand partially corrected. I understand the companies they support have been active. My weight on the word "activity" was directed more toward Seedcoin themselves than the projects / companies they worked with. The way I see it, money was given to Seedcoin...which went somewhere (and you can't assume it went to the companies they supported until they can back it up with data)...and then that was pretty much it. For all I know, Seedcoin may have barely played even a minor role in the development of some of these companies (especially if they had additional outside funding / support besides Seedcoin), even though that may not be the case at all.

I understand and agree with your points, and I understand Seedcoin's point of view as well. I'm just hoping for others to see the other side of it; since when is it appropriate for a company, one that raised a couple thousand Bitcoins, to not make a substantial effort to communicate with the people who funded them? 140 character blurbs every couple days doesn't qualify to me, but perhaps some people find that comforting.

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong on this area.

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/17553/seedcoin-and-startups-btc-sx-bitcoinatm360-bitsim-coinsimple-mexbt-share-exciting-news-this-fall/

Most recent update. Should they have posted it through Havelock probably but they promoted it through Twitter. All of the start up companies, Seedcoin itself and CEO Eddy Travia have been very active in Twitter posting consistent updates. How did you even try looking? Seriously a simple email to them would have provided the information you needed. I've emailed them several times and got replies usually within 24 hours (time zone differences make it difficult to get them right away).

Even beyond that the companies and Seedcoin have spoke at many bitcoin conferences with meXBT just recently announcing developments at money 20/20. About a month and a half ago cryptopay announced their project Jetcoin and sponsorship of a football player.

 The information is easily searchable I don't know why you couldn't find it. If you want to stay up to date get on Twitter and follow them it is by far the easiest way to stay up to date.

Oh dear, apparently I struck a chord on this one, and it's resonating well.

It seems your definition of activity is slightly different than mine. After all, if I'm working hard to make something happen, building up a venture capital enterprise in the process, I'd love to show my investors what I've accomplished and how far along the next project is. It's easy to drum up support for your venture if you involve investors from the start. Get them excited for the things you're doing!

From what I've gathered, however, you went offline essentially right after your second round IPO, ceasing all updates (or even hints) on what may be going on in the background. I judge a company by not only how aggressive they are in building a Bitcoin business (and the viability of said business), but also by how they interact with the people who funded their ventures in the first place.

So yes, you've ceased all activity in the community's eyes, regardless of what you say to the contrary. You may be working incredibly hard in the background, but you've got nothing to show for it. No updates. No dividends. No financials. No recent news articles promoting any of the startups you support. There's nothing going on that would lead any of us to believe that you haven't ceased activity.

I can understand but please believe we have tried our best to offer this to all unit holders. There were too many unit holders with small amount of units to be able to do so and we regret this. It was never our intention to deprive unit holders from the opportunity to continue participating to this investment venture but legal and economic constraints eventually prevailed. This is why we have clearly mentioned this constraint in number of units in the consultation poll on October 1st and hoped that traders willing to convert into shares would be able to reach that level between the publication of the results of the consultation poll and yesterday.

I will send an email about asking. However i was just meaning that the value of my shares were done in terms of the chance of a company being acquired not that I expect the buy back to follow that term. I personally do not agree with the buy back price but as long as I can convert I personally will be happy while I feel bad for others that can't.

Edit: email sent

'pro-rata of their unit holdings' refers to how many units of SF1 holders may hold, in this case this is a buy back not a single startup private acquisition by a VC fund for example.

re. the question about the investor eligibility to convert shares, please contact us at [email protected] as this is a conversation we would like to follow up on a case by case basis, and for which we need more information from you, thank you.

I've highlighted the part here that really matters with regards to my comment. I do understand that you're converting to real equity for over 2,000 shares but I find it unfair that you're excluding this possibility for smaller shareholders.

But wasn't the value the equity in the start ups? Per the prospectus in the event of a buy out of a start up company the unit holders will be compensated pro-rata. That's where I find the value in the shares. The price on Havelock had no bearing on that and that is where I developed my value for the shares.

This comment was made as a personal hint to be taken in an ironic way. It could be taken out of context by some and given a more serious meaning. It is not a financial assessment in any way and should not be construed as such, it is a token of personal faith in SF1 since I have been deeply involved with SF1 for now more than a year as I started speaking with entrepreneurs back in Summer 2013. My remark, in case anyone missed this, is meant to draw the attention to the fact that I find IMO a hypocrite would have the audacity of blaming someone to see value where he/she did not only a few weeks ago. There is no 'value' for SF1 to be seen here other than the price of the last seller's price.

In response to your comment I do not agree with your remark about 'doing the unitholders a disservice'. In order to know if unit holders may or may be better off we would need to assess what would happen if no one bought back any units and let these sit at BTC 0.00015 with extremely low levels of trading. We now give the opportunity to unit holders to hold shares in these startups, that may be a better option in the long run for these unit holders. Granted we do not give this opportunity to all unit holders and that is unfortunate; however, unit holders with less than 2,000 units had units which represented at the time of the consultation poll effectively BTC 0.3 (maximum) in bitcoin value, for which they will now get BTC 0.9 (maximum - or 3 times the last selling price). For those holding much less, anywhere from 1 unit to 100 units of SF1 (worth BTC 0.00045 to 0.045 at buy back price) for example and this is a common case among SF1 unit holders the unavailability of the share conversion option may not seem to be a huge problem, as seen during the consultation poll conducted in October.

Well you have to understand from the communities perspective you provided the fund per the terms of the prospectus. A buy back while indicated in there required a liquidation, accusation or other major event affecting share holder structure then the fund may be closed. The only event I can see was poor performance of the pricing which did not affect shareholder structure. People bought in at 0.001 then just under a year later are being forced to be bought back at 0.00045 for no real reason. Many including myself want to keep this regardless and as stated before I do hope to be able to convert. Many may still feel this way but can't convert.

Like you said the value of the shares are much higher than the prices being bought back at. Whose the one profiting from this transaction? The company buying back is getting the identical shares everyone paid for at a dramatically reduced price. If people felt the security was worth 0.00045 they would have placed sell orders at that price.

The issue isn't that your closing down the fund on Havelock. It's that your forcing people to sell something they don't want to sell at a huge reduced price because others have sold at that price or lower previously.

If I sell you a security at 0.001 and the companies are doing well and growing then I shouldn't be forced to sell back to you at 0.00045 because someone else sold for cheaper than that. As a venture capitalists what would you do if you invested money and had the same thing happen to you?

As well I would really like an answer about conversion of US shareholders to SHL holdings.

Thank you for making comments worth reading. However you should realize that 'full refund' IMO is not the right wording here; no one is refunding anyone, this is a buy back process and although you and some of the investors and/or outsiders to this process may feel the pricing is low please consider that there is no obligation for anyone to 'refund' nor to buy any of these units at a higher price than the last seller's price previous to our first information re. to a potential buy back.
I do not think any investor on Havelockinvestments.com is asking any fund to 'refund' their units based on the original IPO price, this would seem a dangerous precedent and in disregard of basic fundamentals of the investment process. SF1 Funds have been raised (back in January) and invested, any other operation such as this buy back process is a completely separate process, made with privately raised funds which could have been used for any other operation.

The price tanked due to the climate of bitcoin and bitcoin securities. From the very beginning this was a long term investment that you couldn't expect anything for at least a few years. But because bitcoin changed so much (ie new investments, the price dropping or new alts ect) people want to constantly move their bitcoins around to the next big thing. The issue is most investors are amateur investors and couldn't properly assess what they were investing in and are very susceptible to hype. This cause people to sink money in at ipo then try pulling it out but there simply wasn't enough buy support to allow for that. There were 2 million shares released but it was rate rare to ever even see 1000 share buy walls when the price was above 0.0005.

That said I completely agree the value is over 0.001 bitcoins per share as the companies are doing great. Plus the value when bitcoin was invested in these companies for equity was when the buying power of bitcoin was 600+ USD. So by today's standards not even factoring in the growth I'd feel the value of the shares would be closer to 0.002 bitcoins. Because of this I have been buying since ipo consistently.

Now I am quite happy to convert to a registered SHL holding however they have not indicated the qualifications required. Currently they have not indicated if US citizens are able to convert. So I'm hoping they can but won't know until those emails are sent out our Seedcoin clarifies on here.

If they don't allow US citizens to convert I won't be taking that lightly. I am completely unwilling to sell back at a major loss when the shares have much much higher value. I do understand why they are deciding to move it off Havelock and I agree with it I simply do not agree with the value they plan on buying back at. I think a full refund is the only acceptable buy back price but even that I personally wouldn't want to sell back at due to my valuation of the shares.

My only question right now is... Has the Seedcoin lawyer identified any thing that may make holders of 2000+ shares unable to convert to SHL.

Look, SeedCoin, you can pick one or the other. If you think that the value is far in excess of your buy-back price, then you're doing the unitholders a disservice.