Topic: [IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings - page 149. (Read 658701 times)

received another neobee email regarding the share transfer from btct. I already sent them though to be transfer to bitfunder, do i have to do it again? considering the new email they only mentioned havelock but not bitfunder

Yes, but the question is do I have to ? Anyway sooner or later the same will happen to Havelock as well...

You can transfer them to Havelock as TAT explained in an earlier post

So I have a simple question,

I hold a number of NEOBEE stocks at bitFunder, I DO NOT want to sell them, I want to keep them (since I see NEOBEE as a very promising, long time investment). My question is,  what should I do to ensure that this stocks do not disappear (given bitFunder situation and weexchange extremely-low speed)?

Based on this statement , "As of December 2, 2013, BitFunder will initiate a transfer from the BitFunder site to the respective issuer(s) of any remaining shares held by any users that BitFunder knows to be U.S. persons or who did not obtain "Verified" status by December 1, 2013, and will provide the issuer(s) with the public bitcoin address associated with the user account. After transfer, each user will need to work with the issuer(s) with respect to the future treatment of the shares", if weexchange does not speed up, the worst case scenario is that I'll have to speak with TAT (nothing gets lost, but some work has to be done).  Am I correct at this ?

BR
Stelios     

I have only just returned to Cyprus following 4 days in the UK on business matters, so apologies for a lack of responses on my part.

I will only take the VC route once we have finished making our announcements that we believe will drive investment in NEOBEE. These announcements are not far away and following catching up with several parties today and tomorrow, I shall have further announcements to make in relation to the management of shares.

Seems like they are busy to respond

Look into the OTX protocol - Open Transactions. That might be a possible solution in the near future.

There was never any real auditing with centralized exchanges in place, why should p2p exchanges be any different?
Case in point: Labcoin.  A multimillion IPO, heavily traded without any of the "investors" asking if the corporate principals actually *existed*, forget auditing.  The stock is currently a homeless orphan, and the "investors" are still arguing if the mysterious Sam Noi is real, God bless them.

All valid points of concern, but this solves the trading part. We would be essentialy where we are now, but without centralized trading problems like btctc and bitfunder.
Someone else needs to work on the points you state, we agree.

It has everything to do with investing. Just solving functional problems doesn't mean the software you create will be practically useful. If you want software which will only be used by scammers then go ahead and make it anonymous and issuers will be able to scam with impunity. Just look at Labcoin, there are people still wondering whether or not it's a scam even after evidence came out.

When you cannot audit a corporation you do not know what they are doing with your money. If you're talking about smart property and assets then you do need quite a bit more than just what Mastercoin offers. Are you going to background check every issuer? Are you going to solve some of the many risks involved with all this? What are some of your solutions so that we can have distributed regulation along with the exchange?

You don't have to trust them (like you don't have to trust a miner)

Trusting the asset issuer has nothing to do with secure asset trading. Check the thread.

It's not that simple.
Trust doesn't exist in anonymous exchanges. There is no way to audit a corporation or issuer. If someone claims a currency is backed how are you going to check their vaults to see that they have platinum or gold in them?

It's not possible to have a completely decentralized exchange. At some point there will always be central hubs and these will be necessary.

[/quote]

It is and under developement, check mastercoin (http://www.mastercoin.org) project and the bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mastercoin-new-protocol-layer-starting-from-the-exodus-address-265488

Upon further thought,

It's not possible to have a completely decentralized exchange. At some point there will always be central hubs and these will be necessary.

There will be central hubs just for sake of convenience, or to protect investors from fraud/scams, but the technology for a decentralized exchange will be developed even if the implementation makes it somewhat futile due to limited features and liquidity over the next 6-12 months.

I was wrong about a thing or two, and you were right about a thing or two. Regardless there are certain decisions and forces set in motion due to the decisions of Btct and Bitfunder which will ultimately lead to a decentralized exchange attempt. At some point some decentralized exchange attempt will be moderately successful but it will not happen for a while and there are problems which have to be solved before it can be done successfully.

This sucks for investors, but now I actually think its a good move to region block on the centralized exchanges at least until a more decentralized exchange can be created.

Centralized exchanges will have to region block but this will encourage development of better and more decentralized exchanges. It will encourage development of technologies for better centralized exchanges which can have security and be fraud/scam resistant without having to region block.

It will also eventually lead to some better laws and technologies so that region blocks and central exchanges in the current form wont be necessary. If the community could identify what the real problem is (it's not going to be solved just by making a decentralized exchange), and solve those problems then there will be progress.



The reason for that is it launched just prior to the exchange nonsense. It also launched as many people were getting burned by Labcoin which seems to have been a scam.

The reason we cannot easily have a decentralized exchange is because even the central exchanges are populated with fake stocks and scams. Those fake stocks cost people real money, and there is no easy way to investigate each corporation without having some central hub to do it. For this reason TAT is correct and centralized hubs will always be necessary even if we have decentralized exchanges. It's impossible to build a completely decentralized exchange unless we could find a way to deal with the real problems.

Here is the list of the real problems:

1. Scams/Fraud (this is the biggest problem of all, issuers have to be selected carefully and audited, held accountable).
2. Points of failure (In a decentralized exchange while there is not a single point which can go down, you instead rely on a chain and of the members of the chain are compromised or go down it's a failure.)
3. Money laundering (This is debateable whether or not it's a problem but the government will think it is.)

These three main problems have to be worked on before a decentralized exchange can work as intended. Scam and fraud detection requires a centralized hub unless there is a way to have security of that sort in a decentralized manner. Decentralization could probably solve many of the point of failure issues but then you'd need a web of trust in addition to decentralization which ultimately results in a concentration of trusted nodes creating a decentralized hub. Money laundering is up for debate whether or not you think it is a problem, but if it is a problem then it has to be solved too.

The SEC cannot solve these problems, they may be solved technically but the current developers building the next generation technology are not focused on it.  Basically it's going to be difficult for a decentralized exchange to become "trusted". It's going to be difficult to have "trust" with an anonymous issuer, so whoever issues a stock will have to be thoroughly investigated to prevent another Labcoin type scandal or worse.

I agree 100%, even before all of the exchange nonsense, no one was buying the IPO shares.  People obviously hoped it would quickly rise in value and they could make a quick profit, when that didn't happen they undercut the IPO price, meaning the IPO will never sell out.  I know that you have raised more than the minimum, but surely you aimed for the full amount and if the remained is being offered by VCs, you'd be crazy not to accept it.

I went to meet Danny last night (Sunday) whilst he was briefly in England on work matters. We had a great catchup then went on to meet who I definitely hope will be the head of security for Neo.
You should be reminded the ipo runs until the end of November which is over 45 days, not to mention that there will be some big announcements before this date, not least of which is the first mega-merchant Bee has signed up. This alone will be enough to create ripples across the bitcoin world bringing significant attention to the ipo.
As N_S pointed out just 48 btc worth of shares are listed at below ipo price, which when compared to the already raised figure of 9,500+ bitcoins, represents a very small fraction. During this time of uncertainty for US investors I think it's actually quite comforting to know that so few investors have decided to exit. After talking at length with Danny, the prospect of the ipo not selling out is quite rightly not something he is worried about.

yeah, but no one is buying.  and really, without a real plan in place to exchange shares outside of havelock/bitfunder, no one will put more money into a venture like this.

As I'm sure you're aware, the recent news with BTCT shutting down and BitFunder refusing business with US-based customers has negatively affected share prices across the board. It stands to reason that shares listed at IPVO price would not be bought when there are people selling cheaper shares. That said, less than 16,000 shares (< 48 BTC) need to be purchased on BitFunder to bring us back to IPVO price (assuming no new orders)

I'll leave it to Danny & Co. to respond regarding VC avenues, but the company has already reached the 9500BTC threshold to deem the IPVO successful.

cryptocyprus & co. , not glad to say this, but it seems that NEOBEE didn't sell a single share from IPO stack for last 2 weeks? And Shares are trading 1/3 under IPO price, maybe its a good time for venture capital? What do you think? When you plan to sell remaining shares to them? You mentioned before, that you have a lot of offers, so why limiting yourself with only one branch when you can get VC for all 3 of them?

Cancelling the IPO is not "the most clever idea" (to put it in a diplomatic way) ever suggested!