Topic: [IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings - page 100. (Read 658701 times)

Nice drawing 

did you draw that? thats great!

Does Danny Brewster have what it takes to resolve the weex issues?  Or does Cryptocyprus need to step up to right wrongs, stamp out fraud and defeat the evil fiat banksters?

How many shares are (really) left? When will TAT open the floodgates and enable transfers from direct to HL?

Cypres, the Bitcoin hub, with Neo as infrastructure provider. I like it.


Edit:

I see that there are now some useful stats on lmb-holdings.com:


*2769815 x 0.003 BTC = 8309.445 BTC

And according to the public ledger there are 32607 direct shares.

Say what.

Why didn't I panic buy more shares around .0017?

I am guessing you are an AsicMiner shareholder, Ukyo isnt receiving those dividends as has been stated in the relevant thread.

Your point about the media etc, is great until you read recent articles in the Cypriot media about inputs.io.....

We will have the Bitcoin held on our servers insured, so yes we are different to everything that has been before us.

When truth about BF comes out number of customers willing to entrust their savings with yet another entity will be limited.
BF was trying to be such an entity. And BitFunder already looked good by the design:

- No coin were stored in the exchange thus preventing malicious party from stealing it
- Assets were publicly visible thus preventing from fraud or manipulation from within.

Unfortunately, this good design didn't prevent the failure because master Ukyo failed himself.
He didn't bother to warn his customers (from whom he used to collect massive fees for his awesome job!) about possible problems with his enterprise while being well aware of them. Furthermore the operator lied to us and made it look like a technical glitch. Many technical well known persons backed his lies as possible explanation to the problem with bitcoind daemon. So he was able to collect even more coin from inbound transfers just to send them out as so called "manual withdraws". This action caused more people to be affected by his dark magic.

So the design of BitFunder allowed me in the end to... let's check:
- have access to my coin in case of BF failure.... Naaah, I have no access to any part of my coin and the coin is gone
- have access to my assets..... Naaaaah, I have no access to any part of my assets. Furthermore my dividend is still being sent to Master Ukyo because he is owner of my shares and apparently he needs more coin, I might be guessing..


This drama proves us, once again, that the only coin safe is the coin stored in your personal wallet kept away from any bankers or safekeepers.
This story proves that designs doesn't prevent malicious operators from stealing from you.
This accident proves that trustworthy operator can turn bad and he won't tell you a thing about problems causing more damage to users


So I guess helping BitFunder out will prevent headlines like "money from supposed to be safe major bitcoin exchange lost forever" from hitting the news in time when NeoBee will be promoting itself as safe place to store bitcoins.

Not to mention that if there is any link between Ukyo and NeoBee it will be exploited over and over by journalists.

They will be available until they are sold out, you can find that info somewhere in this thread.

ok, this is what I gather from your multiple posts.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. The BF/WeEx deal does not involve NeoBee or NeoBee funds.
2. Your involvement does not create a direct cost for NeoBee, and there are no other financial costs to NeoBee associated with this deal.
3. None of your time or any other time by NeoBee employees spent on this deal will be charged to NeoBee.
4. This deal has no direct monetary benefit and/or profit potential for NeoBee.
5. There are no legal risks to NeoBee with your involvement in this deal.

Thanks for providing that information, and if I may make a suggestion, in the future, make clarifications simple and to the point to avoid further confusion.  Obviously, all of this information could have been made in one post (preferably on the day you promised to do so), and we could have saved a lot of confusion and hassle.

They will go to the one where the CEO doesn't break promises & make mutually-contradictory statements like the ones below.

When this is over and done with, everyone has their coins back in a timely manner and we launch a service aimed towards the Bitcoin community, where trust has been shattered more than once to say the least. We then have a competitor. When a user makes a decision as to which offering they will choose.

Will they go for the one who is headed by a CEO that has a proven record of fixing things that go wrong or the competitor?

Neo & Bee has no legal obligation to the resolution process.

Is Neo & Bee involved or is it just you?  Neo & Bee != Danny.
I may have access to Microsoft's employees, but i can't present myself as "Microsoft" when i buy a house.  Different persons.
I can't hold Neo & Bee legally responsible for your acts just because you're the CEO, that's the point of incorporation.
Should be obvious.

maybe just a calculation of the direct profit/dividends potential versus the risk as a result of NeoBee being involved.  If there is to be a profit from this situation, we'd like to know about it.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough, so I'll ask again, what are the possible positive impacts and/or profits from this for NB shareholders?

Those that want to pursue action are free to do so, I have made that perfectly clear.

The people I have at Neo and Bee are available to me for advice, ideas  in their free time. Also every contact I have are available to me. I am also the focal point of all things Neo & Bee, people know me as Danny from Neo.

My last comment on this matter in here, is something for you to ponder.

If you are a shareholder and I solve this "if" there is a positive impact on Neo & Bee because of it, which translates as profits thus dividends. Do we do a special calculation on your dividends excluding these theoretical profits?

I am sure everyone else would like it to be distributed to them instead.

Can you see why we're confused?

He said that everyone was involved not that they only work on that.

If you are resolving Ukyo's mess as an individual, claiming that Neo & Bee are working on the problem is simply incorrect.
Neo & Bee, as a corporate entity, has no involvement with the whole mess & nothing at stake -- which is great.
The people who delayed action re: Ukyo, OTOH, will feel that they have been mislead by your statement that Neo & Bee is working on the problem.  It is not.  Only you are.

Correct. It is just me resolving the issue, some others have an input to the solutions, but they are doing that on their own free time.

As it is no secret that I am behind Neo & Bee, I took the decision to let everyone know that I am involved personally with the situation.

I have already stated several times that we are not, and neither am I bailing anyone out.

we don't know the terms of the solution, so it's hard for us to judge the positive or negative ramifications of the deal.  The US bank bailouts certainly didn't help the reputation of the Treasury Dept.  I can imagine a number of solutions that would negatively affect your reputation (like using IPVO funds to bailout WeEx users).