The following formats correct?
Bitfunder User Name: fwzd
Number Of Shares:2000
Havelock Users Name:[email protected]
Topic: [IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings - page 153. (Read 658701 times)
All a shareholder registry needs is a robot/service that receives and verifies digitally-signed messages, updating a ledger of share accounts. This can be automated today using GPG tools, if PGP is used, or bitcoind, if ECDSA is used.
Other parties -- as shown in the past -- will create pass-through entities for the various exchanges that exist.
Frankly, I would not trust a third party to 100% manage my company's shareholder list. But that's a business decision. Plenty of Fortune 500 companies hire a 3rd party platform to manage their shareholder registry.
That is not decentralization, it is breaking out a piece of the puzzle to attempt to remove trust from one part the equation. It would not prove flawless, nor exempt from trust requirements anyway.
Nowhere was it claimed to be anything more than one piece of the puzzle.
Given all current field experience with unregulated securities,
Any company would be unwise to place their shareholder roster 100% in the hands of an unregulated third party.
Take a cue from ASICMINER, that developed a working method after GLBSE's collapse.
No migrations from BTCT.co to Bitfunder have completed. Unfortunately this requires assistance of Ukyo, the Bitfunder operator. He has not been available and makes no claims as to when he will be. Anyone wishing to migrate to Bitfunder must either wait til he faciliates, or resubmit their migration request to Havelock details.
So, I'm able to cancel my transfer from BTCT to BitFunder and request transfer from BTCT to Havelock by writing email to you, right?
Correct, simply send a new request with all the pertinent details.
No migrations from BTCT.co to Bitfunder have completed. Unfortunately this requires assistance of Ukyo, the Bitfunder operator. He has not been available and makes no claims as to when he will be. Anyone wishing to migrate to Bitfunder must either wait til he faciliates, or resubmit their migration request to Havelock details.
So, I'm able to cancel my transfer from BTCT to BitFunder and request transfer from BTCT to Havelock by writing email to you, right?
NEOBEE Bitfunder Migration Grace Period
In light of Bitfunder's recent announcements, we are enabling each Bitfunder shareholder ONE free migration to Havelock.
The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate this migration request before November 1, 2013.
2. Due to a massive amount of requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 1st, all transfers will go back to having the 1btc service fee.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.
How to Transfer Shares:
1. Make the subject of your email: NEOBEE
2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: NeoBee
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with Havelock, and also note the address and quantity of shares within the email conent.
4. Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include other requests, questions or comments.
Transfers will be transfered in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.
NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.
In light of Bitfunder's recent announcements, we are enabling each Bitfunder shareholder ONE free migration to Havelock.
The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate this migration request before November 1, 2013.
2. Due to a massive amount of requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 1st, all transfers will go back to having the 1btc service fee.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.
How to Transfer Shares:
1. Make the subject of your email: NEOBEE
2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: NeoBee
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with Havelock, and also note the address and quantity of shares within the email conent.
4. Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include other requests, questions or comments.
Transfers will be transfered in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.
NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.
I haven't received my BTCT.co shares yet. Have you completed migration from BTCT.co or is it still in progress?
No migrations from BTCT.co to Bitfunder have completed. Unfortunately this requires assistance of Ukyo, the Bitfunder operator. He has not been available and makes no claims as to when he will be. Anyone wishing to migrate to Bitfunder must either wait til he faciliates, or resubmit their migration request to Havelock details.
NEOBEE Bitfunder Migration Grace Period
In light of Bitfunder's recent announcements, we are enabling each Bitfunder shareholder ONE free migration to Havelock.
The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate this migration request before November 1, 2013.
2. Due to a massive amount of requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 1st, all transfers will go back to having the 1btc service fee.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.
How to Transfer Shares:
1. Make the subject of your email: NEOBEE
2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: NeoBee
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with Havelock, and also note the address and quantity of shares within the email conent.
4. Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include other requests, questions or comments.
Transfers will be transfered in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.
NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.
In light of Bitfunder's recent announcements, we are enabling each Bitfunder shareholder ONE free migration to Havelock.
The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate this migration request before November 1, 2013.
2. Due to a massive amount of requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 1st, all transfers will go back to having the 1btc service fee.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.
How to Transfer Shares:
1. Make the subject of your email: NEOBEE
2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: NeoBee
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with Havelock, and also note the address and quantity of shares within the email conent.
4. Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include other requests, questions or comments.
Transfers will be transfered in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.
NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.
I haven't received my BTCT.co shares yet. Have you completed migration from BTCT.co or is it still in progress?
NEOBEE Bitfunder Migration Grace Period
In light of Bitfunder's recent announcements, we are enabling each Bitfunder shareholder ONE free migration to Havelock.
The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate this migration request before November 1, 2013.
2. Due to a massive amount of requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 1st, all transfers will go back to having the 1btc service fee.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.
How to Transfer Shares:
1. Make the subject of your email: NEOBEE
2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: NeoBee
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Bitfunder account name (not email),
- Bitfunder public wallet address
- Quantity of shares
- Havelock registered email address
Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include other requests, questions or comments.
Transfers will be transferred in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.
NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.
In light of Bitfunder's recent announcements, we are enabling each Bitfunder shareholder ONE free migration to Havelock.
The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate this migration request before November 1, 2013.
2. Due to a massive amount of requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 1st, all transfers will go back to having the 1btc service fee.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.
How to Transfer Shares:
1. Make the subject of your email: NEOBEE
2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: NeoBee
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Bitfunder account name (not email),
- Bitfunder public wallet address
- Quantity of shares
- Havelock registered email address
Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include other requests, questions or comments.
Transfers will be transferred in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.
NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.
If you don't want to offer direct share ownership, then what will happen to the US holders of Neobee shares? They will be migrated to Havelock apparently but what will happen when Havelock comes out tomorrow or day after that and says they don't accept US customers anymore? Will shares have to be migrated again or what?
This is the reason why we have 4 people working as I type on finding/creating the long term sustainable solution. So we can cater for everyone regardless of their geographical location.
btw, competition between centralized powers is also a kind of decentralization 
If you don't want to offer direct share ownership, then what will happen to the US holders of Neobee shares? They will be migrated to Havelock apparently but what will happen when Havelock comes out tomorrow or day after that and says they don't accept US customers anymore? Will shares have to be migrated again or what?
The reasoning behind using a platform and not direct handling of shares for ourselves is down to the man hours required to operate on such a basis, we are operating in the real world, we have multiple aspects of the business that need constant oversight and attention, for myself to assign someone for the task is achievable however it comes at a cost to the business, we as a business do not specialize in the trading of shares or have a platform capable of doing so (at the moment) so the best solution is to operate using the platforms available to us. Do things need to change surrounding these platforms? YES they do, whilst we are investigating the matter in great detail we cannot provide a solution overnight.
Additionally, people need the convenience of being able to trade on an exchange. The forum tends to respond in extremes, first people will yearn for decentralization, private shares, etc. But if that's where they started, they'd be yearning for convenience, etc.
Neither way is wrong or right, but it's certainly more useful (to all parties) to have a platform.
You are correct, my opinion is clear. The infrastructure should be decentralized (i.e. i should be able to keep my shares in a "wallet" if i so choose) and centralized exchange points should be available for convenience (if i want to utilize this convenience I should load my shares on them and trade easily). Bottom line people should have a choice on how they treat their stocks, centralization is not bad per-se the only bad thing is having no say at it
. Ofcourse this is not available right now so NEO & BEE is using the existing infrastructure (correctly ). All a shareholder registry needs is a robot/service that receives and verifies digitally-signed messages, updating a ledger of share accounts. This can be automated today using GPG tools, if PGP is used, or bitcoind, if ECDSA is used.
Other parties -- as shown in the past -- will create pass-through entities for the various exchanges that exist.
Frankly, I would not trust a third party to 100% manage my company's shareholder list. But that's a business decision. Plenty of Fortune 500 companies hire a 3rd party platform to manage their shareholder registry.
That is not decentralization, it is breaking out a piece of the puzzle to attempt to remove trust from one part the equation. It would not prove flawless, nor exempt from trust requirements anyway.
The PTs would still need to operate on an exchange, and assuming they are popular, we'd be right back where we started, simply placing all trust on PT operators, whom are also placing trust in the exchange.
Managing a private shareholder list isn't the problem to solve. Sure it could be made more verifiable or manageable to have a private list in place, but we still have many other needs to address for all parties, needs best addressed by centralized powers.
But that ignores the very reason exchanges exist: To provide a convenient, popular, trustworthy, efficient marketplace. Stocks are more than ledgers, they are an entire economy themselves.
This economy is made useful (and profitable) by Exchanges, Investments Banks, Investors, and the Businesses/Financial Instruments made available by and for those parties.
In addition to having this popular marketplace, made of these (centralized) powers, the separation, and expectation of having those powers in place, provides an environment where all 4 parties' interests can be aligned, and thus thrive.
If you break all this into pieces (decentralization), you lose most of benefits of this system, and swap them for only a literal protocol that takes its place.
Everywhere you look in the world, you will find systems defending my argument. In nature, in finance, in society, in politics, it's the very way of life and the universe itself.
This economy is made useful (and profitable) by Exchanges, Investments Banks, Investors, and the Businesses/Financial Instruments made available by and for those parties.
In addition to having this popular marketplace, made of these (centralized) powers, the separation, and expectation of having those powers in place, provides an environment where all 4 parties' interests can be aligned, and thus thrive.
If you break all this into pieces (decentralization), you lose most of benefits of this system, and swap them for only a literal protocol that takes its place.
Everywhere you look in the world, you will find systems defending my argument. In nature, in finance, in society, in politics, it's the very way of life and the universe itself.
Centralization is easy, decentralization is hard. That's why people flock to centralized solutions. So, although it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that the systems "defend" your argument (they don't, they are just not good enough), I partially agree with you. But we should keep things in perspective and calculate the trade-off's. I remember Nefario making the same argument about a centralized stock exchange.
Companies can keep track of shareholders easily in an automated manner. And accredited investors can run centralized pass-throughs. This is very doable without resorting to future tech. So, let's discuss the downsides.
Convenience: Agreed. Shareholders would have to keep track of issuing companies and relevant escrows. A proper decentralized system that doesn't need an escrow and can harvest a list of issuers will solve this completely and would be even more convenient than having accounts in multiple exchanges. However, in the current atmosphere, it is even less convenient to invest through a centralized exchange, so to me the issue is moot. Will we have risk-free legal exchanges sooner than the proposed decentralized solution? I doubt it.
Popularity: Not sure about this one. Any solution can become popular. If all companies kept their own list of shareholders using the same protocol, there would still be centralized directories and easy to use tools to trade their shares. This isn't as hard a problem as creating a completely decentralized exchange system.
Trust: Disagreed. Is the trust to current exchanges satisfactory? My trust to friedcat is higher than friedcat+exchangeoperator+PToperator. This should be obvious. Although, until we have some system that works without an escrow, there is that.
Efficiency: Agreed. Centralized solutions will always be more efficient. No doubt about that.
Bitcoin actually is a good example.
Bitcoin itself is not as simple to put in this box, as bitcoin is first a protocol, second a commodity, and third a currency. Arguably none of those things are centralized nor decentralized, as they are concepts, not services or products or the like.
We are certainly talking about Bitcoin as a solution to currency. The protocol, the commodity and the currency are all alternatives to centralized systems, so it fits perfectly. It also fits to your above criteria. Central solutions are far more efficient. Transactions are instant, and they can implement any solution to any problem that may arise almost immediately without having to invent a new technology. The protocol is extremely resilient, because you don't need to implement Byzantine fault tolerance. So on and so forth.
Yet, Bitcoin thrives. I have no doubt that people will always prefer a decentralized stock exchange whenever a proper one is developed. Until then, all companies should have a relationship with the shareholders directly. Legal downsides of this is up for discussion, however.
However decentralized bitcoin may be in and of itself, it did not thrive with order. This forum as a communication point, Gox as an exchange point, WOT, Reddit, Havelock, etc, etc, etc. They all have their flaws, but they all serve and continue to serve their purpose.
My argument is simply that a decentralized solution is a unicorn. The moment you think you can grasp it, it will slip away. All of the decentralized concepts ultimately rely on ordered powers to facilitate their usefulness. Maybe they are different areas of centralization, or smaller groups, or higher quantity groups, but any amount of a system being smaller parts, provides more points of failure, more points needing trust, etc.
Without centralized forces, people may have never heard of TAT Investments, nor Neo. We may have never even met to come together for the IPVO. Neo wouldn't have raised enough coin in the "wild" decentralized system, and TATI would not have a reputation as clear as it does currently.
I have already stated the advantages of centralized powers, but don't confuse this with me supporting the concept in its extreme. The answer is always somewhere in between; I simply do not believe true decentralization is possible or desirable. Same as how chaos and anarchy are not practical or desirable. Many people arguing for decentralization are merely describing a different system (usually with more, smaller parts), not a decentralized one.
All a shareholder registry needs is a robot/service that receives and verifies digitally-signed messages, updating a ledger of share accounts. This can be automated today using GPG tools, if PGP is used, or bitcoind, if ECDSA is used.
Other parties -- as shown in the past -- will create pass-through entities for the various exchanges that exist.
Frankly, I would not trust a third party to 100% manage my company's shareholder list. But that's a business decision. Plenty of Fortune 500 companies hire a 3rd party platform to manage their shareholder registry.
The reasoning behind using a platform and not direct handling of shares for ourselves is down to the man hours required to operate on such a basis, we are operating in the real world, we have multiple aspects of the business that need constant oversight and attention, for myself to assign someone for the task is achievable however it comes at a cost to the business, we as a business do not specialize in the trading of shares or have a platform capable of doing so (at the moment) so the best solution is to operate using the platforms available to us. Do things need to change surrounding these platforms? YES they do, whilst we are investigating the matter in great detail we cannot provide a solution overnight.
Additionally, people need the convenience of being able to trade on an exchange. The forum tends to respond in extremes, first people will yearn for decentralization, private shares, etc. But if that's where they started, they'd be yearning for convenience, etc.
Neither way is wrong or right, but it's certainly more useful (to all parties) to have a platform.
I think most of the people just wanted to know that you have a constantly updated list of all shareholders on Bitfunder and they can rely on it.
It's actually public: https://bitfunder.com/assetlist In addition to having this popular marketplace, made of these (centralized) powers, the separation, and expectation of having those powers in place, provides an environment where all 4 parties' interests can be aligned, and thus thrive.
If you break all this into pieces (decentralization), you lose most of benefits of this system, and swap them for only a literal protocol that takes its place.
Everywhere you look in the world, you will find systems defending my argument. In nature, in finance, in society, in politics, it's the very way of life and the universe itself.
People only need a "centralized entry point" or a "centralized brand name". But the technological structure of it must/can be decentralized.
"Bitcoin" is like a centralized brand name. But technically (inside) Bitcoin is a decentralized network. All people around here know about Bitcoin (the most popular digital currency), but the centralized thing here is only its name.
It's like gold. All people know about gold. It's a centralized "brand name". But gold itself is decentralized. Yes, some people have a lot of gold, and other people have not any piece of gold. Some corporations have a lot of power for gold mining. But gold is still a decentralized currency anyway - with the "centralized brand name".
Another example: BitTorrent. Everyone knows about this network. Everyone downloads the same BitTorrent client and everyone can use the same torrent tracker website(s) to get new torrent files. But it's only a "centralized brand name". Technically it's a decentralized network.
That's what people need: centralized brand names / entry points with decentralized internal structure.
agreed, I like the idea of colored coins, we could have as many centralized exchanges as we want to trade on, and when one goes down another could always pop up. We could also trade directly P2P as we choose. I'm not sure how this would break the economy either. In fact I think it would expand it. You could have central exchanges with higher or lower requirements for security issuers and this would dictate the risk level. People could choose where they want to trade based on their personal taste or trading strategy, the shares would also be traded privately in a truly open p2p market. People would use the exchanges to calculate share value. Just like bitcoins except marked coins representing company shares. I love it and I hope if anything all this disruption causes programmers and devs to move faster to get something pushed out that we can test and begin developing as a community. This is one reason bitcoin has done so well, we don't need middle men. We still have them, but we can choose. We can buy shares from a company on one exchange and we can trade there or do whatever we want with them but we control them entirely. But of course I don't know everything so please elaborate on why colored coins, mastercoin or something like that would destroy the economy.
Are you saying only the USA has an SEC type institution?
Has there been a single prosecution of a company which you can hold up to show that the SEC is persecuting Bitcoin companies?
Excluding US citizens isn't a solution which benefits the Bitcoin community. It benefits governments who would love to see the Bitcoin community divided along national lines afraid of the SEC or some other institution.
The only result of this is that the centralized exchange idea will be pushed aside because if centralized exchanges divide the community by nationality then it's becoming another kind of nationalist institution which goes against the entire purpose of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a global currency.
The only real solution if you're going to follow the philosophy of Bitcoin is to decentralize the stock market just as Bitcoin is. This set of events will set into motion that process because I just can't see people trusting an unregistered unregulated market like Bitfunder, Havelock or any of these when they can just wait for crowdfunding law to take effect and go to SecondMarket and buy real shares in a regulated exchange.
Bitfunder is trying to avoid US regulation, under the impression that the market somehow needs their particular solution. It's about supply and demand and they can no longer supply US customers which take up a vast majority of the market. You also have to look at the situation as a fork in the road.
Do we want to be users, or do we want to be customers? If we build a decentralized solution then we are the users and we don't need to trust anybody. The congress would have to negotiate directly with users to set regulations. If we go the centralized route then you have to trust a central authority who will make decisions on your behalf and all the problems associated with that. On top of that you have to pay them a fee for the privilege.
I just don't see any benefit for US citizens to go any route but the decentralized route at this point and this is partially because trust has been permanently breached and the business model of the centralized exchange depends entirely on trust. The SEC has the role to try and protect the interests of customers, but if customers are taken out of the equation then it's just the users and the users have to define themselves because Bitcoin is not USD.
Miners generate coins, but miners are considered users and not money transmitters. If they are considered money transmitters then they have to get together and lobby to change the rules so that it makes snese for the industry and for the technology. The same will have to happen with Bitcoin stocks, otherwise there will be no Bitcoin stocks as people will just go back to trading the real stocks and not bother with it.
Has there been a single prosecution of a company which you can hold up to show that the SEC is persecuting Bitcoin companies?
Excluding US citizens isn't a solution which benefits the Bitcoin community. It benefits governments who would love to see the Bitcoin community divided along national lines afraid of the SEC or some other institution.
The only result of this is that the centralized exchange idea will be pushed aside because if centralized exchanges divide the community by nationality then it's becoming another kind of nationalist institution which goes against the entire purpose of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a global currency.
The only real solution if you're going to follow the philosophy of Bitcoin is to decentralize the stock market just as Bitcoin is. This set of events will set into motion that process because I just can't see people trusting an unregistered unregulated market like Bitfunder, Havelock or any of these when they can just wait for crowdfunding law to take effect and go to SecondMarket and buy real shares in a regulated exchange.
Bitfunder is trying to avoid US regulation, under the impression that the market somehow needs their particular solution. It's about supply and demand and they can no longer supply US customers which take up a vast majority of the market. You also have to look at the situation as a fork in the road.
Do we want to be users, or do we want to be customers? If we build a decentralized solution then we are the users and we don't need to trust anybody. The congress would have to negotiate directly with users to set regulations. If we go the centralized route then you have to trust a central authority who will make decisions on your behalf and all the problems associated with that. On top of that you have to pay them a fee for the privilege.
I just don't see any benefit for US citizens to go any route but the decentralized route at this point and this is partially because trust has been permanently breached and the business model of the centralized exchange depends entirely on trust. The SEC has the role to try and protect the interests of customers, but if customers are taken out of the equation then it's just the users and the users have to define themselves because Bitcoin is not USD.
Miners generate coins, but miners are considered users and not money transmitters. If they are considered money transmitters then they have to get together and lobby to change the rules so that it makes snese for the industry and for the technology. The same will have to happen with Bitcoin stocks, otherwise there will be no Bitcoin stocks as people will just go back to trading the real stocks and not bother with it.
I was agreeing with your conclusion.
[...]
I think most of the people just wanted to know that you have a constantly updated list of all shareholders on Bitfunder and they can rely on it.
Thanks for the update.
whilst we are investigating the matter in great detail we cannot provide a solution overnight.
Sure. Please consider Jeff's solution, as it will occupy far less man hours if properly implemented. Also, the urgency arises because of the WeExchange verification deadline. Since you already have the asset holdings list, it may be possible to convert to direct shares even after the deadline, which would relieve the urgency, although I don't know what sort of protocol would be needed in order to remove those shares from BitFunder.
Jump to: