Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 270. (Read 1079974 times)
September 20, 2013, 10:34:11 PM
You must realize that a lot of people read news from Labcoin stating "Congratulations! We are now fully hashing. The IPO is a success" and they bought shares. That announcement was never redacted. Right now the entire stock is operating by deceiving shareholders. The warning is appropriate.
September 20, 2013, 10:32:04 PM
The day before Lehman Bros collapsed the CEO told investors in a conference call that the company was in no danger of insolvency. He knew exactly what was happening.
His defense was that if he had told investors the true state of the company that it would have immediately collapsed due to share selling.
His defense was that if he had told investors the true state of the company that it would have immediately collapsed due to share selling.
You are correct and I agree 100%.
The exchange does not know the facts behind the situation and made a public statement.
Statements should be coming from LabCoin.
-Ukyo
Good point Ukyo. That warning is ill grounded even with no ill intention. Halt the transaction to find out the truth could be an option for exchange operator.
September 20, 2013, 10:30:59 PM
It was completely warranted. I agree it shouldn't be there, but you can't say it's there without cause.
Ducking the exchange operator couldn't be a bigger red flag.
Ducking the exchange operator couldn't be a bigger red flag.
Correct, it should have stated that fact, not the hearsay and opinions of others is my point.
As of this point it is impossible to determine if the damages would have been more or less.
September 20, 2013, 10:29:41 PM
The day before Lehman Bros collapsed the CEO told investors in a conference call that the company was in no danger of insolvency. He knew exactly what was happening.
His defense was that if he had told investors the true state of the company that it would have immediately collapsed due to share selling.
Does anyone understand the inherent conflict here? How can it be justified to withhold information that something is in danger of collapsing because disclosing it would hasten it?
Personally, I think that the truth should be laid out regardless of the consequences. If the truth causes a collapse, the collapse was inevitable anyway. All that gets bought by hiding the truth is a few days for the well-connected to get out and get clear.
I don't know the future of labcoin or any other security with any certitude. But I do know the truth when I see it. And the warning on BTC-TC was no exaggeration if you read this thread. If speaking the truth causes the price of a share to collapse, then maybe it should collapse. It is all the process of price discovery in a free market after all.
It seems to happen repeatedly in the securities business that owners refuse to deliver bad news because of the effect it will have on investors. They delay any real news as they scramble to put together enough performance to release a statement that is not bad enough to tank the shares. They delay, and delay, and delay. And then investors get antsy. And then they get frustrated. And then they get angry. And by then, no news will be good enough, and the whole thing comes crashing down.
When will owners learn that delivering bad news is part of their job?
His defense was that if he had told investors the true state of the company that it would have immediately collapsed due to share selling.
Does anyone understand the inherent conflict here? How can it be justified to withhold information that something is in danger of collapsing because disclosing it would hasten it?
Personally, I think that the truth should be laid out regardless of the consequences. If the truth causes a collapse, the collapse was inevitable anyway. All that gets bought by hiding the truth is a few days for the well-connected to get out and get clear.
I don't know the future of labcoin or any other security with any certitude. But I do know the truth when I see it. And the warning on BTC-TC was no exaggeration if you read this thread. If speaking the truth causes the price of a share to collapse, then maybe it should collapse. It is all the process of price discovery in a free market after all.
It seems to happen repeatedly in the securities business that owners refuse to deliver bad news because of the effect it will have on investors. They delay any real news as they scramble to put together enough performance to release a statement that is not bad enough to tank the shares. They delay, and delay, and delay. And then investors get antsy. And then they get frustrated. And then they get angry. And by then, no news will be good enough, and the whole thing comes crashing down.
When will owners learn that delivering bad news is part of their job?
I'd like to point at that with LB, the CEO made the decision to disclose or not, and not the NYSE. The exchange has no place in these matters. Once it has decided to list a security it is up to the shareholders to decide what to do. Make a scammer thread on Bitcointalk, make a Reddit post, shout from the rooftops. Whatever floats your boat is within your rights as a holder, but the exchange is not the appropriate entity to be labeling securities as anything after they have been approved.
Edit: If I were Burnside I wouldn't even set the precedent that it is somehow the exchange's responsibility to inform shareholders that they may be investing in a scam. That could come back to bite.
September 20, 2013, 10:25:34 PM
The day before Lehman Bros collapsed the CEO told investors in a conference call that the company was in no danger of insolvency. He knew exactly what was happening.
His defense was that if he had told investors the true state of the company that it would have immediately collapsed due to share selling.
His defense was that if he had told investors the true state of the company that it would have immediately collapsed due to share selling.
You are correct and I agree 100%.
The exchange does not know the facts behind the situation and made a public statement.
Statements should be coming from LabCoin.
-Ukyo
September 20, 2013, 10:22:09 PM
The day before Lehman Bros collapsed the CEO told investors in a conference call that the company was in no danger of insolvency. He knew exactly what was happening.
His defense was that if he had told investors the true state of the company that it would have immediately collapsed due to share selling.
Does anyone understand the inherent conflict here? How can it be justified to withhold information that something is in danger of collapsing because disclosing it would hasten it?
Personally, I think that the truth should be laid out regardless of the consequences. If the truth causes a collapse, the collapse was inevitable anyway. All that gets bought by hiding the truth is a few days for the well-connected to get out and get clear.
I don't know the future of labcoin or any other security with any certitude. But I do know the truth when I see it. And the warning on BTC-TC was no exaggeration if you read this thread. If speaking the truth causes the price of a share to collapse, then maybe it should collapse. It is all the process of price discovery in a free market after all.
It seems to happen repeatedly in the securities business that owners refuse to deliver bad news because of the effect it will have on investors. They delay any real news as they scramble to put together enough performance to release a statement that is not bad enough to tank the shares. They delay, and delay, and delay. And then investors get antsy. And then they get frustrated. And then they get angry. And by then, no news will be good enough, and the whole thing comes crashing down.
When will owners learn that delivering bad news is part of their job?
His defense was that if he had told investors the true state of the company that it would have immediately collapsed due to share selling.
Does anyone understand the inherent conflict here? How can it be justified to withhold information that something is in danger of collapsing because disclosing it would hasten it?
Personally, I think that the truth should be laid out regardless of the consequences. If the truth causes a collapse, the collapse was inevitable anyway. All that gets bought by hiding the truth is a few days for the well-connected to get out and get clear.
I don't know the future of labcoin or any other security with any certitude. But I do know the truth when I see it. And the warning on BTC-TC was no exaggeration if you read this thread. If speaking the truth causes the price of a share to collapse, then maybe it should collapse. It is all the process of price discovery in a free market after all.
It seems to happen repeatedly in the securities business that owners refuse to deliver bad news because of the effect it will have on investors. They delay any real news as they scramble to put together enough performance to release a statement that is not bad enough to tank the shares. They delay, and delay, and delay. And then investors get antsy. And then they get frustrated. And then they get angry. And by then, no news will be good enough, and the whole thing comes crashing down.
When will owners learn that delivering bad news is part of their job?
September 20, 2013, 10:22:06 PM
Ukyo you are wrong here, Labcoin should not only have a warning attached, it should be delisted entirely. They used burnside's platform to lie to investors. No exaggeration, they lied and deceived, and no one can debate that. Why is that okay with no consequences? This stock has done great damage to btct's reputation.
September 20, 2013, 10:18:15 PM
Where's our update? Any explanation as to why mining output is so low?
People thought they might be mining with the 3 Avalons that one of them had, or it was possible that someone might be sending their BTCGuild payments to their address to pump the price up. Except, they'd need to have a ton of hash power to keep doing it.
Up until now it did look like their hashrate was consistent with the 3 avalon theory, but this latest one is equivalent to 4.8 Avalons. We still can't say for sure, but it's looking less likely. We also can't rule out the 'outsider sending his payments to pump the price' theory. But the longer these payments go on, the less likely that is, and the more hash power that person would need to have.
They're up to 5.87 BTC right now. So, while it would be possible to make that much flipping the stock with the crazy fluxuations lately, it's less likely.
Still, I'm not suggesting anyone buy this stock with anything other then money they feel like gambling. I would still consider it extremely high risk at this point.
September 20, 2013, 10:17:33 PM
Okay, another payment. This time 0.2 for 3 hours of work. That's definitely more then 3 Avalon. In fact, it's 4.8, or about 400Gh/s.
So new hashrate estimate is 400Gh/s. I think my prior one was off, it should have been averaged over several hours, not just one.
But 400Gh/s is the new baseline, as far as I can tell.
So new hashrate estimate is 400Gh/s. I think my prior one was off, it should have been averaged over several hours, not just one.
But 400Gh/s is the new baseline, as far as I can tell.
Assuming someone else has not lost quite a bit of value recently and thought it may be more fruitful to point their miners at the address as well.
A few parts of a btc from enough miners can add up, increase share price since no one is confirming or denying and then they can sell off and not be at such a loss.
Wonder how much better it would make labcoin look if I pointed my avalons? (I will not.)
This is just my point.
Though, I am curious if the pool would send multiple payments to the same address at the same time or sum them into one payment if this was done.
September 20, 2013, 10:13:45 PM
Okay, another payment. This time 0.2 for 3 hours of work. That's definitely more then 3 Avalon. In fact, it's 4.8, or about 400Gh/s.
So new hashrate estimate is 400Gh/s. I think my prior one was off, it should have been averaged over several hours, not just one.
But 400Gh/s is the new baseline, as far as I can tell.
So new hashrate estimate is 400Gh/s. I think my prior one was off, it should have been averaged over several hours, not just one.
But 400Gh/s is the new baseline, as far as I can tell.
September 20, 2013, 10:11:14 PM
"WARNING -- There is a lot of controversy over the reliability of the operator of this asset. Please place your orders accordingly."
I am an exchange operator and this may be seen in poor view and many will disagree however the following is the personal opinion of myself as an investor in Labcoin.
As a Labcoin share holder who has not sold, I feel the message has done financial harm to Labcoin investors as it could easily be put on many asset's pages and has received special treatment never used before. (To the best of my knowledge)
Not to defend Labcoin's actions or justify the asset or argue that nothing should have been posted or done, just that it has carries suggestive implications without stating any facts.
This message carries no facts or merits of any kind and has only necessarily caused a form of market devaluation and manipulation.
In another thread it was mentioned being posted due to lack of response from the issuer.
If that is the case, please change the message to say that there is a lack of communicative response from the issuer to the exchange and not that there is "a lot of controversy".
As to weather posting the facts of a lack of communication would have caused the exact same devaluation, this can no longer be proven now and may potentially have had a much smaller impact.
There is a lot of controversy on many many many assets. Just because one is in the spotlight more does not mean the exchange needs spotlight it as well without stating any facts.
The immediate price drop of the asset following the posting of the speculative non-factual suggestive message (regardless of any potential issues with the asset) has cost investors thousands of bitcoins in losses by the message.
10,000,000 shares and a trade price of about 0.0025 btc per share at the time prior to posting having a roughly 25,000 valuation dropping to 0.0015 15,000 valuation.
Again, regardless of if there is the controversy or not, the exchange should not be posting non-factual information that could cause potential changes to the market value of an asset.
This is akin to the exchange posting a message similar to "Many users expect this asset to do very well. Place your orders accordingly."
The site already reminds users to be careful with their investments.
I do not like to see people get scammed, I think there are many potential actions from an exchange point of view.
I do not think causing already concerned investors massive losses by spreading controversy is one of them.
Speeding up potential drops in valuation is not within the scope of an exchange protecting it's investors or in the investors best interest.
Halting trade on an asset if there is a factual proven issue (or even extreme lack of communications between issuer and exchange) is within scope of investor protection.
The job of the exchange is to protect investors and offer a reliable service.
Who protected investors from the price drop ensued by the relay of non-factual "controversy" by the exchange?
Feel free to flame me for the message. I fully expect it from some. I may be very wrong and I do not intent to make a continued argument over it.
I am just stating an opinion that has been bugging me all day that I wanted to share.
As one of the already aforementioned concerned investors, I feel that this only made things worse and should at least be corrected.
I am an exchange operator and this may be seen in poor view and many will disagree however the following is the personal opinion of myself as an investor in Labcoin.
As a Labcoin share holder who has not sold, I feel the message has done financial harm to Labcoin investors as it could easily be put on many asset's pages and has received special treatment never used before. (To the best of my knowledge)
Not to defend Labcoin's actions or justify the asset or argue that nothing should have been posted or done, just that it has carries suggestive implications without stating any facts.
This message carries no facts or merits of any kind and has only necessarily caused a form of market devaluation and manipulation.
In another thread it was mentioned being posted due to lack of response from the issuer.
If that is the case, please change the message to say that there is a lack of communicative response from the issuer to the exchange and not that there is "a lot of controversy".
As to weather posting the facts of a lack of communication would have caused the exact same devaluation, this can no longer be proven now and may potentially have had a much smaller impact.
There is a lot of controversy on many many many assets. Just because one is in the spotlight more does not mean the exchange needs spotlight it as well without stating any facts.
The immediate price drop of the asset following the posting of the speculative non-factual suggestive message (regardless of any potential issues with the asset) has cost investors thousands of bitcoins in losses by the message.
10,000,000 shares and a trade price of about 0.0025 btc per share at the time prior to posting having a roughly 25,000 valuation dropping to 0.0015 15,000 valuation.
Again, regardless of if there is the controversy or not, the exchange should not be posting non-factual information that could cause potential changes to the market value of an asset.
This is akin to the exchange posting a message similar to "Many users expect this asset to do very well. Place your orders accordingly."
The site already reminds users to be careful with their investments.
I do not like to see people get scammed, I think there are many potential actions from an exchange point of view.
I do not think causing already concerned investors massive losses by spreading controversy is one of them.
Speeding up potential drops in valuation is not within the scope of an exchange protecting it's investors or in the investors best interest.
Halting trade on an asset if there is a factual proven issue (or even extreme lack of communications between issuer and exchange) is within scope of investor protection.
The job of the exchange is to protect investors and offer a reliable service.
Who protected investors from the price drop ensued by the relay of non-factual "controversy" by the exchange?
Feel free to flame me for the message. I fully expect it from some. I may be very wrong and I do not intent to make a continued argument over it.
I am just stating an opinion that has been bugging me all day that I wanted to share.
As one of the already aforementioned concerned investors, I feel that this only made things worse and should at least be corrected.
Why complain? Just buy cheap shares and increase your position as a long term shareholder. If you're trying to day trade then that message is for you.
September 20, 2013, 10:10:17 PM
So, I guess "today" really did mean tomorrow for Labcoin's message.
September 20, 2013, 10:10:15 PM
On another note, another 0.2 BTC has made it's way to the account.
September 20, 2013, 10:09:09 PM
Yeah its completely retarded, that warning can be put on every security on there including ASICminer its completely ridiculous, I hope you all message him personally. Completely uncalled for. The fact that it was posted along with all the FUD makes me feel better about this security. A very good contrarian indicator.
I have sent one 2 minutes ago. WTF! September 20, 2013, 10:08:52 PM
Whether Burnside intended it or not he exacerbated the sell-off.
September 20, 2013, 10:06:38 PM
Yeah its completely retarded, that warning can be put on every security on there including ASICminer its completely ridiculous, I hope you all message him personally. Completely uncalled for. The fact that it was posted along with all the FUD makes me feel better about this security. A very good contrarian indicator.
September 20, 2013, 10:03:26 PM
+1
I was completely shocked when I saw the warning. I do not feel that burnside did it with mal-intent, but I do feel it should be removed.
I was completely shocked when I saw the warning. I do not feel that burnside did it with mal-intent, but I do feel it should be removed.
I do agree that I believe Bunrside has no ill intentions towards users.
September 20, 2013, 10:02:54 PM
Ukyo，I 1000% agree with you. Burnside has crossed the line. It's not fair.
September 20, 2013, 10:02:52 PM
The whole Avalon thing is the dumbest thing in the world. If it was true Avalons would of been mining right away as they all easily work with pools, but again you 3rd world country folk have malnutritioned brains.
September 20, 2013, 10:01:33 PM
+1 Been holding sense day 1, still have know doubt, communication could be better, but to many fuders any way
Jump to: