If you are proven lying on your contract, your asset issuer information, or in any communication with the exchange, your asset will be frozen indefinitely, all assets you hold on the exchange will be frozen, and your asset will most likely be delisted.
...
If found in violation of these rules, you will be given a warning and will have 7 days to come into compliance. If you do not comply your asset will be delisted.
If you are proven
I was not aware there was proof of anything? I apologize I must have missed something.
As to once proof is found, it says delisting. Nothing about warning users away without giving a factual reason.
Based on your quote either:
A. The requirement half of this was not met.
or
B. The result was not carried out as mentioned.
Somehow something went wrong somewhere if this was to be invoked.
I still do not see anything in there about "If there is lack of communications for an unspecified amount of time then we will warn all investors that other investors may be concerned without any solid concrete proof or bothering to mention the lack of communications or timeframe provided and continue to keep that information away from the investment page."
Again, my issue is not necessarily about the share price itself but the effecte of the message being non-factual hearsay instead of proper facts which are only being distributed after the fact in part and not whole. At what point does "a lot of controversy" merit a reason to spread more controversy? When it is 5 people? 10? Or just the operators belief?
Rumor: "a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth."
Hearsay: "something heard from another person : something that you have been told"
The warning meets both of these criteria unless there is a proven fact to back it which was not revealed.
There is no reason for an exchange to partake in the spreading of rumors and hearsay.
I tried to keep the warning low key. I thought it was fairly self explanatory.
He was placing a warning to users that "There is a lot of controversy over the reliability of the operator of this asset."
So does this mean Burnside has proven that Labcoin has failed is unreliable? Or is this his opinion? Or is he just parroting forum users?
If he has, why has the asset not been frozen? If he has not, why is he spreading unknown factors/rumors/hearsay?
"Because people should know", "Just in case" ? Just in case of what? That's damaging.
Spreading unconfirmed rumor discredit's labcoin and it's operators with unproven opinionated slander.
Sure, you could "Labcan has already xxx" Great. That is fine for them to do it. It does not give someone else with authority to do it to them.
Prior to the message, Labcoin posted a signed address and said mining income will begin to arrive there.
Also prior to the message, the address did in fact get posted and some coins were deposited at least from Slush.
You can argue all you want about whats in the address and who is sending what but unless Burnside knows for fact that the asset operator is not the mining party and unreliable he should not continue to spread rumors causing additional damaging effects to both the asset, the operator and the investors.
Sure, you can argue poor communications from that point on and prior but that is no different than most of the other asset operators. (Not to mention the Chinese holiday.)
Even FriedCat has had little to no forum posting in weeks/months and continues to do what he does with much speculation and controversy of others yet the same warning on the AsicMiner-PT nor does one appear on ActiveMiner, etc.
