simple question:
what is going to be the incentive to use this system for a person (not a merchant) as
opposed to using cash?
Topic: [IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings - page 200. (Read 658701 times)
Just wanted to ask if they plan to use the btc they raise to convert them to USD/EUR or to sell to depositors of the bank...
Nice prospectus for a 3 millions usd IPO but this was expected:) looking to see what next. No website in preparation?
Actually I can see a 2000 usd company registration with no past business. A nice debit card designed but looking vitual ( never been physically printed yet). A realy nice PDF which could be a 500 usd worth work from a student and nothing more. But I can be wrong.
Any way to check more about your authenticity? Nothing personnal... just I'm a bit septikal but would be happy to be proofed I'm wrong
Regards, Neotrix
Actually I can see a 2000 usd company registration with no past business. A nice debit card designed but looking vitual ( never been physically printed yet). A realy nice PDF which could be a 500 usd worth work from a student and nothing more. But I can be wrong.
Any way to check more about your authenticity? Nothing personnal... just I'm a bit septikal but would be happy to be proofed I'm wrong
Regards, Neotrix
The BTCT.co passthrough security is now posted and up for voting: https://btct.co/security/TAT.NEOBEE
You will see it is essentially a simplified version of the underlying NEOBEE prospectus, focusing on the passthrough aspects. We hope this will be approved soon, as it is one piece of the puzzle to allow this coordinated release.
The share count for the BTCT TAT.NEOBEE asset is somewhat arbitrary for now. It is meant to allow enough possibility for issuance of enough shares to cover sales as we dynamically work across exchanges during the IPVO. Once the IPVO is complete, we will edit the total share count caps on each exchange to be accurately limited to the 9.6m public shares. At no point during the IPVO will "extra" shares be sold in excess of that allocation.
Thank you everyone for your consideration so far.
You will see it is essentially a simplified version of the underlying NEOBEE prospectus, focusing on the passthrough aspects. We hope this will be approved soon, as it is one piece of the puzzle to allow this coordinated release.
The share count for the BTCT TAT.NEOBEE asset is somewhat arbitrary for now. It is meant to allow enough possibility for issuance of enough shares to cover sales as we dynamically work across exchanges during the IPVO. Once the IPVO is complete, we will edit the total share count caps on each exchange to be accurately limited to the 9.6m public shares. At no point during the IPVO will "extra" shares be sold in excess of that allocation.
Thank you everyone for your consideration so far.
This. Is. Awesome!
Thanks TAT!
And when/where would one go for xbonds?
The BTCT.co passthrough security is now posted and up for voting: https://btct.co/security/TAT.NEOBEE
You will see it is essentially a simplified version of the underlying NEOBEE prospectus, focusing on the passthrough aspects. We hope this will be approved soon, as it is one piece of the puzzle to allow this coordinated release.
The share count for the BTCT TAT.NEOBEE asset is somewhat arbitrary for now. It is meant to allow enough possibility for issuance of enough shares to cover sales as we dynamically work across exchanges during the IPVO. Once the IPVO is complete, we will edit the total share count caps on each exchange to be accurately limited to the 9.6m public shares. At no point during the IPVO will "extra" shares be sold in excess of that allocation.
Thank you everyone for your consideration so far.
You will see it is essentially a simplified version of the underlying NEOBEE prospectus, focusing on the passthrough aspects. We hope this will be approved soon, as it is one piece of the puzzle to allow this coordinated release.
The share count for the BTCT TAT.NEOBEE asset is somewhat arbitrary for now. It is meant to allow enough possibility for issuance of enough shares to cover sales as we dynamically work across exchanges during the IPVO. Once the IPVO is complete, we will edit the total share count caps on each exchange to be accurately limited to the 9.6m public shares. At no point during the IPVO will "extra" shares be sold in excess of that allocation.
Thank you everyone for your consideration so far.
However, the SEC may have ability to regulate an offering to US citizens. We did not claim to be using the IPVO term as a method to skirt the SEC, that was an assumption of a commenter. As I clarified, it is a new term meant to differentiate from a term that simply means something else.
Regarding how the SEC would view this, the simple answer is that it is complicated, and very much the responsibility of our lawyers and their strategy for legitimizing what we are doing within the current framework and guidance of the law. I know that certain registrations are being filed, and certain exemptions being considered for various aspects of what we are. What we are is the first entity attempting to be the first bitcoin investment bank, and that is no simple task to enact.
Regarding how the SEC would view this, the simple answer is that it is complicated, and very much the responsibility of our lawyers and their strategy for legitimizing what we are doing within the current framework and guidance of the law. I know that certain registrations are being filed, and certain exemptions being considered for various aspects of what we are. What we are is the first entity attempting to be the first bitcoin investment bank, and that is no simple task to enact.
Okay, this makes more sense. If only the SEC would stop dragging its feet on the crowdsourced equity this would be no problem at all...
i will watch it from the sideline... 
Are you waiting to get something nailed down before releasing the IPVO? Would it make sense to release the IPVO only after regulators have given you the green light? Do you have the foresight to say when you expect this decision to be made?
Operating in the grey area is fine and all. It's just that that is another risk that needs to be expounded upon and weighed.
Operating in the grey area is fine and all. It's just that that is another risk that needs to be expounded upon and weighed.
We have been told we can operate, that is not in question. We want to be regulated for transparency and the benefits this brings on the PR front locally. I wouldn't have released any information at all if I didn't know for certain that we can operate.
We have a very strong hand going into the lobbying process, overall there is a risk but it is less than slight in the eyes of those providing the advice to us.
Are you waiting to get something nailed down before releasing the IPVO? Would it make sense to release the IPVO only after regulators have given you the green light? Do you have the foresight to say when you expect this decision to be made?
Operating in the grey area is fine and all. It's just that that is another risk that needs to be expounded upon and weighed.
Operating in the grey area is fine and all. It's just that that is another risk that needs to be expounded upon and weighed.
If you read the provided description of the term IPVO, it makes clear that this is not attempt to do what Burnside is doing. His use of "virtual" is in a context of a "game" in his text. This is not a game, it is virtual-currency-fueled finance. The difference here is that, from a legal standpoint, the IPVO, while similar in ways to an IPO, is quite different.
To date, the bitcoin securities market has attempted to use the term IPO creatively by redefining it to suit its needs, but the term IPO, is meant to imply more than simply selling your company publicly. "IPO" is an accepted term that implies an offering that will be made public on traditional stock exchanges at Wall St and the like, which is obviously not the case here.
Being that most bitcoin IP(V)Os are things like fundraising, crowdfunding, profit-shares, informal entities, and partially unregulated, a unique term must be adopted to differentiate so as not to confuse those familiar with traditional IPOs.
As Danny mentions, there is trailblazing happening here. Both of our legal teams are hard at work establishing ourselves as best as possible within the current framework of guidance. As I have mentioned before, there will be more news on these developments soon, and there will be even more changes to come.
To date, the bitcoin securities market has attempted to use the term IPO creatively by redefining it to suit its needs, but the term IPO, is meant to imply more than simply selling your company publicly. "IPO" is an accepted term that implies an offering that will be made public on traditional stock exchanges at Wall St and the like, which is obviously not the case here.
Being that most bitcoin IP(V)Os are things like fundraising, crowdfunding, profit-shares, informal entities, and partially unregulated, a unique term must be adopted to differentiate so as not to confuse those familiar with traditional IPOs.
As Danny mentions, there is trailblazing happening here. Both of our legal teams are hard at work establishing ourselves as best as possible within the current framework of guidance. As I have mentioned before, there will be more news on these developments soon, and there will be even more changes to come.
I do hope it works out, it will be great for bitcoin if this venture can succeed. Thanks for your response, but it addresses why I was curious to hear your opinion on the question, it doesn't answer the actual question...
The virtual entity is to ensure current American SEC regulations are not being broken by investors from America.
Why are you sure that calling it virtual will definitely exempt you from all SEC regulations?...which as other have commented, appears to not be the case. Cryptocyprus has also avoided the question, even though several people have now raised it.
If it this IPVO wasn't for a financial service I wouldn't be pushing this, but they want to start a bitcoin bank! What other important legal or regulatory things do they believe are ensured that aren't? It's something of a red flag, especially when it's probably only a matter of time before the wrong civil servants in some place or another start looking for excuses to close them down.
The aspects of Neo being a "bank", and how the SEC classifies this offering are two separate things. The SEC would not have much ability to regulate a Cypriot bank, and Danny has responded to the situation regarding his local regulation environment.
However, the SEC may have ability to regulate an offering to US citizens. We did not claim to be using the IPVO term as a method to skirt the SEC, that was an assumption of a commenter. As I clarified, it is a new term meant to differentiate from a term that simply means something else.
Regarding how the SEC would view this, the simple answer is that it is complicated, and very much the responsibility of our lawyers and their strategy for legitimizing what we are doing within the current framework and guidance of the law. I know that certain registrations are being filed, and certain exemptions being considered for various aspects of what we are. What we are is the first entity attempting to be the first bitcoin investment bank, and that is no simple task to enact.
I can tell you we are confident in the plan our lawyers have put forth, and they are in the process of implementing it step-by-step. Our goal is to have made every good faith effort we could have by the time clear regulation has been passed for bitcoin and bitcoin finance overall. At that time, if there are any discrepancies between our position and what is required, we will move our methods into compliance as appropriate.
...which as other have commented, appears to not be the case. Cryptocyprus has also avoided the question, even though several people have now raised it.
If it this IPVO wasn't for a financial service I wouldn't be pushing this, but they want to start a bitcoin bank! What other important legal or regulatory things do they believe are ensured that aren't? It's something of a red flag, especially when it's probably only a matter of time before the wrong civil servants in some place or another start looking for excuses to close them down.
I didn't want it to seem as though I was avoiding the question, but I felt it was more appropriate for TAT to answer.
We are absolutely certain we could open our branches tomorrow and offer our planned services, there are no applicable regulations that would require us to obtain any licenses here in Cyprus. We are being pro-active and lobbying to change this, so we can offer lending products and other financial products. We are developing our systems and all policies and procedures to fit with the requirements placed on other financial institutions, this is still very much square pegs into round holes. The early indications from our lobbying efforts show that they understand this problem and we are moving forward to address this matter.
There needs to be an understanding that we are not operating within the US so guidelines set by FinCen and regulatory bodies in the US have no bearing whatsoever on our operations in Cyprus.
If you read the provided description of the term IPVO, it makes clear that this is not attempt to do what Burnside is doing. His use of "virtual" is in a context of a "game" in his text. This is not a game, it is virtual-currency-fueled finance. The difference here is that, from a legal standpoint, the IPVO, while similar in ways to an IPO, is quite different.
To date, the bitcoin securities market has attempted to use the term IPO creatively by redefining it to suit its needs, but the term IPO, is meant to imply more than simply selling your company publicly. "IPO" is an accepted term that implies an offering that will be made public on traditional stock exchanges at Wall St and the like, which is obviously not the case here.
Being that most bitcoin IP(V)Os are things like fundraising, crowdfunding, profit-shares, informal entities, and partially unregulated, a unique term must be adopted to differentiate so as not to confuse those familiar with traditional IPOs.
As Danny mentions, there is trailblazing happening here. Both of our legal teams are hard at work establishing ourselves as best as possible within the current framework of guidance. As I have mentioned before, there will be more news on these developments soon, and there will be even more changes to come.
To date, the bitcoin securities market has attempted to use the term IPO creatively by redefining it to suit its needs, but the term IPO, is meant to imply more than simply selling your company publicly. "IPO" is an accepted term that implies an offering that will be made public on traditional stock exchanges at Wall St and the like, which is obviously not the case here.
Being that most bitcoin IP(V)Os are things like fundraising, crowdfunding, profit-shares, informal entities, and partially unregulated, a unique term must be adopted to differentiate so as not to confuse those familiar with traditional IPOs.
As Danny mentions, there is trailblazing happening here. Both of our legal teams are hard at work establishing ourselves as best as possible within the current framework of guidance. As I have mentioned before, there will be more news on these developments soon, and there will be even more changes to come.
I do hope it works out, it will be great for bitcoin if this venture can succeed. Thanks for your response, but it addresses why I was curious to hear your opinion on the question, it doesn't answer the actual question...
The virtual entity is to ensure current American SEC regulations are not being broken by investors from America.
Why are you sure that calling it virtual will definitely exempt you from all SEC regulations?...which as other have commented, appears to not be the case. Cryptocyprus has also avoided the question, even though several people have now raised it.
If it this IPVO wasn't for a financial service I wouldn't be pushing this, but they want to start a bitcoin bank! What other important legal or regulatory things do they believe are ensured that aren't? It's something of a red flag, especially when it's probably only a matter of time before the wrong civil servants in some place or another start looking for excuses to close them down.
What are the real reasons behind the 'virtual entity' nonsense when you could be selling the real shares in the real legal entity ?
The virtual entity is to ensure current American SEC regulations are not being broken by investors from America.Edit: added quote below from the BTC-TC thread:
Your perspective is short-sighted, in my opinion.
Yes, it is easier to think and behave how you recommend, but that does not make it healthy or right or smart or necessary.
This is not a question of shoddy legalese, it is calling a duck a spade for the preservation of the duck trade.
He can afford KYC hoops, and there are services that can help with that. Why assume he has made any effort at all in that regard?
No one expects a bitcoin financial service effort to be totally SEC-proof at this point, but the SEC does indeed value good faith efforts to operate within the law. They do not, however, respect deception and the contrary.
Yes, I can acknowledge that legal developments take time, I know this first hand. But I do not see how asserting a false position is wise, nor how a legal team could recommend such.
Yes, it is easier to think and behave how you recommend, but that does not make it healthy or right or smart or necessary.
This is not a question of shoddy legalese, it is calling a duck a spade for the preservation of the duck trade.
He can afford KYC hoops, and there are services that can help with that. Why assume he has made any effort at all in that regard?
No one expects a bitcoin financial service effort to be totally SEC-proof at this point, but the SEC does indeed value good faith efforts to operate within the law. They do not, however, respect deception and the contrary.
Yes, I can acknowledge that legal developments take time, I know this first hand. But I do not see how asserting a false position is wise, nor how a legal team could recommend such.
If you read the provided description of the term IPVO, it makes clear that this is not attempt to do what Burnside is doing. His use of "virtual" is in a context of a "game" in his text. This is not a game, it is virtual-currency-fueled finance. The difference here is that, from a legal standpoint, the IPVO, while similar in ways to an IPO, is quite different.
To date, the bitcoin securities market has attempted to use the term IPO creatively by redefining it to suit its needs, but the term IPO, is meant to imply more than simply selling your company publicly. "IPO" is an accepted term that implies an offering that will be made public on traditional stock exchanges at Wall St and the like, which is obviously not the case here.
Being that most bitcoin IP(V)Os are things like fundraising, crowdfunding, profit-shares, informal entities, and partially unregulated, a unique term must be adopted to differentiate so as not to confuse those familiar with traditional IPOs.
As Danny mentions, there is trailblazing happening here. Both of our legal teams are hard at work establishing ourselves as best as possible within the current framework of guidance. As I have mentioned before, there will be more news on these developments soon, and there will be even more changes to come.
Your prospectus mentions an aggressive trading platform to hedge FX fluctuations - Can you elaborate on this a bit more? Will you using internal manpower/bots or sourcing 3rd party platforms?
Best of luck!
Best of luck!
We are not restricting ourselves to certain platforms and or methods of trading, it will be a mixture of all mentioned in your post on and away from the public markets. Our team will be managing and constantly developing a complex portfolio of futures and strategic partnerships.
Look forward to hearing you.
Can you just explain the context of ......"We have spent the last 12 months making the necessary contacts with both regulators, government officials and key influential groups such as those now challenging the EU over the bail-ins".......... Were there really Bitcoin-Cyprus discussions, this time last year?
This has been in the planning for 12 months, irregardless of the bail-ins and I personally knew we had to have certain individuals, the media, decision makers on board to launch any type of Bitcoin related business here on the ground for the mass adoption. So yes there was Bitcoin-Cyprus discussions happening this time last year, it wasn't mainstream it was more in passing during that time to gauge reactions and to make those connections, whilst I personally developed the ideas and solving the noted issues surrounding the mass adoption.
Thanks a lot for your clarifications, cryptocyprus!
No problem, any more questions that you have will be addressed as quickly as possible.
Thanks a lot for your clarifications, cryptocyprus!
A route for non-bitcoin customers, maybe........ http://www.bitcointrezor.com/
The trezor hardware wallet is great until you lose it, we want to ensure that as little of a conscious effort as possible has to be made by our customers towards security above and beyond what they are already subjected too.
Also, stumbled on this, and see parallels possibly (although im still trying to understand the legitimacy of these, if any?)....... https://www.bitmit.net/en/shop/c/23-money/8-credit-cards
We will not be offering anonymous anything, one of the biggest concerns from the regulators was the misrepresentation that Bitcoin is completely anonymous. Once we explained this in detail, they are much more receptive to the idea.
Will you have a recognizable presence/sponsership at the Amsterdam Conference?
I am speaking at the conference.
Look forward to hearing you.
Can you just explain the context of ......"We have spent the last 12 months making the necessary contacts with both regulators, government officials and key influential groups such as those now challenging the EU over the bail-ins".......... Were there really Bitcoin-Cyprus discussions, this time last year?
Your prospectus mentions an aggressive trading platform to hedge FX fluctuations - Can you elaborate on this a bit more? Will you using internal manpower/bots or sourcing 3rd party platforms?
Best of luck!
Best of luck!
A route for non-bitcoin customers, maybe........ http://www.bitcointrezor.com/
The trezor hardware wallet is great until you lose it, we want to ensure that as little of a conscious effort as possible has to be made by our customers towards security above and beyond what they are already subjected too.
Also, stumbled on this, and see parallels possibly (although im still trying to understand the legitimacy of these, if any?)....... https://www.bitmit.net/en/shop/c/23-money/8-credit-cards
We will not be offering anonymous anything, one of the biggest concerns from the regulators was the misrepresentation that Bitcoin is completely anonymous. Once we explained this in detail, they are much more receptive to the idea.
Will you have a recognizable presence/sponsership at the Amsterdam Conference?
I am speaking at the conference.
Jump to: