Labcoin needs to show an improvement in hashrate in order to break out of .0028, if the hashrate is stagnant then there may be lingering doubts over whether its just a bunch of avalons.
Nah, they just need Europe to wake up to break 0.002849
Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 255. (Read 1079974 times)
September 22, 2013, 12:32:47 AM
Nah, they just need Europe to wake up to break 0.002849
September 22, 2013, 12:32:25 AM
Labcoin needs to show an improvement in hashrate in order to break out of .0028, if the hashrate is stagnant then there may be lingering doubts over whether its just a bunch of avalons.
If this is to be believed...
UPDATE:
According to Sam, more hash rate will be deployed daily.
According to Sam, more hash rate will be deployed daily.
Won't be too much longer.
September 22, 2013, 12:31:57 AM
I'm still waiting for you to find it in the contract. However, if they have agreed to it and publicly stated that they would lock %75 then they should follow through. (Though i don't personally feel it to be necessary)
Okay, seems you are a little bit lazy tonight. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3203970
Wait, your seriously quoting your own post of a quote of a news article as proof of locking shares being in their CONTRACT?
The original point was that it isn't in the contract and you said it was. I'm done with this conversation... News release <> Contract.
September 22, 2013, 12:29:46 AM
Labcoin needs to show an improvement in hashrate in order to break out of .0028, if the hashrate is stagnant then there may be lingering doubts over whether its just a bunch of avalons.
September 22, 2013, 12:29:36 AM
BTW, walls are getting eaten.
Once that wall at 0.002849 is gone, it's open road ahead.
That would be a strong signal at least. By the way, don't forget that the current hashrate is @ 800 GH/s. People are happy, but shouldn't be too much.
September 22, 2013, 12:28:04 AM
Next thing they need to do is figure out how to get that warning removed on btct.co.
Showing pics of their hardware would be icing on the cake.
Not just the icing, it would actually be the whole lot of cream on a freaking wedding cake. Though I am still concerned with their hardware performance. Showing pics of their hardware would be icing on the cake.
September 22, 2013, 12:24:51 AM
Also, I'm not seeing where in the contract it states that they would lock their shares...
Go to btct.co. Click on "Market" then on "News". You should find all you need here. My God.
I'm still waiting for you to find it in the contract. However, if they have agreed to it and publicly stated that they would lock %75 then they should follow through. (Though i don't personally feel it to be necessary)
If they lock their shares, then they are forced to profit from their own dividends rather than price manipulation (because they can't sell their shares). This gives them more incentive to publically mine without hiding it.
Has any other asset manager done that?
Who cares what other asset managers do, it's a move that increases shareholder confidence for reasons I mentioned..
September 22, 2013, 12:24:31 AM
I'm still waiting for you to find it in the contract. However, if they have agreed to it and publicly stated that they would lock %75 then they should follow through. (Though i don't personally feel it to be necessary)
Okay, seems you are a little bit lazy tonight. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3203970
September 22, 2013, 12:24:13 AM
BTW, walls are getting eaten.
Once that wall at 0.002849 is gone, it's open road ahead.
September 22, 2013, 12:23:13 AM
Also, I'm not seeing where in the contract it states that they would lock their shares...
Go to btct.co. Click on "Market" then on "News". You should find all you need here. My God.
I'm still waiting for you to find it in the contract. However, if they have agreed to it and publicly stated that they would lock %75 then they should follow through. (Though i don't personally feel it to be necessary)
If they lock their shares, then they are forced to profit from their own dividends rather than price manipulation (because they can't sell their shares). This gives them more incentive to publically mine without hiding it.
Has any other asset manager done that?
September 22, 2013, 12:21:53 AM
I can't think of any possible way that locking shares could be a bad thing.. please elaborate?
It's just not important. If they were dishonest, they could hold back hash power and solo mine, or sell hardware and not disclose the income, or 100 other dishonest things to not pay their due to the shareholders. Worrying about locking their shares doesn't even make sense once you accept that they actually designed/produced and constructed mining rigs and are paying out dividends. Locking shares is only important if you think they are a scam.
Asking them to lock shares is frankly a vote of no-confidence and a blatant slap in the face and I'm ready for the issue to die.
I agree. Shares were meant to be locked for the IPO.
Now when they are hashing it's no that important as they had plenty of other ways to scam us if they wanted to. In saying that, I don't believe they are out to scam us.
BTW, walls are getting eaten.
September 22, 2013, 12:20:49 AM
Now a new round begins. This thread is full of the same circles. If I could only predict the timing:)
September 22, 2013, 12:20:19 AM
I can't think of any possible way that locking shares could be a bad thing.. please elaborate?
It's just not important. If they were dishonest, they could hold back hash power and solo mine, or sell hardware and not disclose the income, or 100 other dishonest things to not pay their due to the shareholders. Worrying about locking their shares doesn't even make sense once you accept that they actually designed/produced and constructed mining rigs and are paying out dividends. Locking shares is only important if you think they are a scam.
Asking them to lock shares is frankly a vote of no-confidence and a blatant slap in the face and I'm ready for the issue to die.
If they lock their shares, then they are forced to profit from their own dividends rather than price manipulation (because they can't sell their shares). This gives them more incentive to publically mine without hiding it.
September 22, 2013, 12:19:23 AM
Also, I'm not seeing where in the contract it states that they would lock their shares...
Go to btct.co. Click on "Market" then on "News". You should find all you need here. My God.
September 22, 2013, 12:17:52 AM
meh, locking the shares is only one of the 100 ways they could screw you if they weren't honest.
Seems you just don't understand what a contract means. Maybe because you're too young (or greedy or blind) for that.
I'm not the one resorting to Ad hominem attacks. I'm only young if you are older than 38, greedy... hmm would I like the value of my investments to increase? Yeah... Blind? I'm not even sure what you are referring to.
Also, I'm not seeing where in the contract it states that they would lock their shares...
September 22, 2013, 12:17:24 AM
I can't think of any possible way that locking shares could be a bad thing.. please elaborate?
It's just not important. If they were dishonest, they could hold back hash power and solo mine, or sell hardware and not disclose the income, or 100 other dishonest things to not pay their due to the shareholders. Worrying about locking their shares doesn't even make sense once you accept that they actually designed/produced and constructed mining rigs and are paying out dividends. Locking shares is only important if you think they are a scam.
Asking them to lock shares is frankly a vote of no-confidence and a blatant slap in the face and I'm ready for the issue to die.
If they sell their shares there is no incentive for them to continue to run the operation. Is that correct? Sounds important, if that is the case.
September 22, 2013, 12:12:34 AM
meh, locking the shares is only one of the 100 ways they could screw you if they weren't honest.
Seems you just don't understand what a contract means. Maybe because you're too young (or greedy or blind) for that.
EDIT:
Asking them to lock shares is frankly a vote of no-confidence and a blatant slap in the face and I'm ready for the issue to die.
No and no. That was a decision taken by Labcoin. Are you on Mars ?
September 22, 2013, 12:11:58 AM
I can't think of any possible way that locking shares could be a bad thing.. please elaborate?
It's just not important. If they were dishonest, they could hold back hash power and solo mine, or sell hardware and not disclose the income, or 100 other dishonest things to not pay their due to the shareholders. Worrying about locking their shares doesn't even make sense once you accept that they actually designed/produced and constructed mining rigs and are paying out dividends. Locking shares is only important if you think they are a scam.
Asking them to lock shares is frankly a vote of no-confidence and a blatant slap in the face and I'm ready for the issue to die.
September 22, 2013, 12:11:10 AM
Next thing they need to do is figure out how to get that warning removed on btct.co.
Showing pics of their hardware would be icing on the cake.
Showing pics of their hardware would be icing on the cake.
They must lock their shares as I already said 100 times before.
meh, locking the shares is only one of the 100 ways they could screw you if they weren't honest.
Drop it... that is like complaining about Anna Paquin's gap.
I can't think of any possible way that locking shares could be a bad thing.. please elaborate?
How long are they supposed to lock shares for? Has anyone else locked shares?
September 22, 2013, 12:08:19 AM
Next thing they need to do is figure out how to get that warning removed on btct.co.
Showing pics of their hardware would be icing on the cake.
Showing pics of their hardware would be icing on the cake.
They must lock their shares as I already said 100 times before.
meh, locking the shares is only one of the 100 ways they could screw you if they weren't honest.
Drop it... that is like complaining about Anna Paquin's gap.
I can't think of any possible way that locking shares could be a bad thing.. please elaborate?
Jump to: