Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 780. (Read 1079974 times)

It proves nothing. Some people are just born into wealth and the more money you have the easier it is to make more money, as I've directly experienced over the past couple of months

I'd like to get a bunch of people like you and give them a small amount to trade with and see how well they do compared to some homeless person with the same amount. If the homeless person made more profit than the rich snobs would you then hold their opinion higher than the snobs opinion?

I'm not a sheep, are you? If you are then why are you playing with Bitcoins? After all the Warren Buffets and Carl Ichan types don't consider this to be real money yet.

Doesn't need to be on NASDAQ, it can be on myballz.com, it is still a legal binding agreement that is represented as such that the founders shares and the public's shares are the same, hence the public owns 70% of the company.

How do you know how many shares I own or don't own? Make wild speculations much?

Sure... there is reason why the public blindly follow people like Carl Icahn and Warren Buffet, considering that they are worth billions of dollars probably has nothing to do with that right? right??

But let's not act like this company is on NASDAQ. You don't even own a direct share.

Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security.

Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights. You still end up having ownership through the agreement and wording of the contract, which again becomes a legal contract.

Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company.

"I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. "

"We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors."

"Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company."

The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls.

every single time i check this thread someones always bitchin about something someone said or something

Social darwinism.

Bubble!

Net worth has relevance in the investing world considering it shows that they have a proven track record of good decision making, maybe its sad to you but to me and a lot of my peers consider net worth something that matters

this is wrong.. regardless of whether the company is not listed on a market they have sold 70% of their company to the public, regardless of whether BTCT goes away they should still be obligated to pay shareholders since that is how they came to fruition... what about when GLBSE closed? Friedcat still maintained a list of shareholders and when a new exchange opened he continued to keep to his contract

If we didnt believe Labcoin would do the same in a similar situation why the hell are you investing in their company? fact is 70% of the company is OWNED by investors

both of you are dumb.. im going to watch tv

What relevance does that have? Anyone who judges people based on their wealth is a complete and utter arsehole. Sadly, that applies to far too many people on these forums.

You made your point. They are going to be made to uphold their end of the virtual contract or whatever it is. The problem is in defining it as a stock though because I'm not sure if it fits the definition. It's for sure that people who play the game by the rules and terms have a right to what was promised even in the context of the game rules. So whether its a game or not should not matter.

That is not the same as owning the company!

Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares!

For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off.

End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money. Even though it's virtual you can go to court and sue for your promised virtual goods, since you have made a binding contract.

But NAW yo, cause I'm superior than governments, and even though they say otherwise I say NAW

Never said it would save them from any scrutiny. If they turn out to be a scam then there will be scrutiny whether it's a game or not. Even games aren't allowed to completely scam people. If blizzard offered people a new game and didn't follow their own terms then even if its a game there are consequences.

My point is that we don't have any precedent to know what it is legally and that is the main reason why it is so much risk and why people want ROI ASAP. ROI builds trust and if people have essentially got back what they initially put into it then there is no more risk on their part.

Yes Physalis, you are right, and the American Judicial system that said the above is wrong. I guess you can come to america and say "This is all virtual" lmao

its pointless to argue with either of you, regardless of whether its a game or not money is involved and works like the stock market

the company issues shares and promise we invest based on that then the valuation will find itself once they are selling hardware and mining, I am not saying they are obligated to do anything but this is how it works and calling it a game isnt going to save it from scrutiny if the govt decides to do anything

both of you are just bantering uselessly,

That is closer to what it is. It's legally binding similar to how Cloudhashing or any of the other mining contracts are. But it's not a stock because you don't really get voting rights or own Labcoin legally because Labcoin is a company which issued itself on a virtual platform rather than a traditional IPO.

Honestly, the laws have to be updated eventually to include this kind of business crowd funding or alternate reality platform or whatever it turns out to be. Right now there is no agreed upon legal definition so you're essentially gambling with virtual stocks until there is a law set up to define virtual stocks as assets.

No, nothing what this tool says is dead on. It shows the kind of dangerous half-knowledge that gets you killed in this market. Wild unbased speculations paired with immature ramblings.

VE is the one who is dead on. And he never said that "Asicminer was done".
He advised people to sell AM now and get into this stock, which is the same thing I'd advise.
AM is not going to die, but it has seen its peak. If you want to make huge returns, you undertake a risk and invest in the competitor to AM that bitcoin desperately needs.

And VE is also completely correct to state that this is all virtual, you don't own shit. Not 1% of the company, not 70%. Nada.
That doesn't mean they can just take your money and run, but you don't own their company, period.