Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 833. (Read 1079974 times)

I bought back in, patience is key with these types of things!

The real world would also see the price collapse rapidly like a Facebook IPO

Then a year later you would get to the IPO Price XD
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/03/facebook-stock-closes-ipo

Facebook's resurgent stock has closed above its IPO price for the first time since the online social networking leader made its debut on Wall Street more than 14 months ago.

The shares gained 56 cents to finish Friday's session at $38.05 (£25), the stock's highest closing price since ending its first day of trading at $38.23 in May of last year.

CLASSIC it took me a year I waited and waited I was so proud of My IPO and I made 5 cents

No, that's not true at all.  In the "Real World" the IPO Share distribution isn't fair at all.  People with the best connections get the most shares.  That's how it works. If this IPO was done as it was in the real world, most people wouldn't have gotten shares at all unless they knew the founders or burnside.

People with good connections would have gotten the shares.

e) and is a relatively upstanding member of the community.

Spend 5 minutes watching the trollbox on btc-e or reading *shudder* mircea popescu's blog and you'll feel better about TaT

He has his moments, and can be extraordinarily unprofessional. I just hope he is working on this, as it will end up destroying the TAT brand he has built up very successfully. Most of the time, however, he conducts business a professional manner.

That minor exchange isn't that minor and has labcoin

First come first served would have pissed off a greater number of people. It's possible that I'm delusional, but then again, maybe it's the few remaining grumblers who just won't let go...

How about starting a thread with a vote for new features for the rules you want to implement, rather than complaining about the supposed flaws in an unprecedented event on BTCT?

I find it hilarious that "ThickAsThieves" who is...

a) an ASICMINER Board Member; ASICMINER - an established company with similar business plan as the recent upstarts
b) heavily involved in a minor competing exchange to BTCT where neither Labcoin or ActM trade
c) runs several ASICMINER pass throughs
d) has no investments in Labcoin or ActM (or so he says himself)

...goes through lengths to spread misinformation and FUD about the companies where he directly profits if people lose their trust.
As icing on the cake he is also concerned about the overall legitimacy of the market in one sentence and in the next he describes how he bought in to the recent IPO's only to make a quick buck'.

It's not random, however, there are some set rules.
And some rules are better than others.
These were stupid, for the reason I explained.
First come first served (with some cap) might have been much better.

If you write a rule assuming something happens, and people manage to exploit it in their favour, you've failed. This is what happened here.
No big deal, but refusing to admit that this rule was deeply flawed is hugely delusional.

Correct.  The sync behind the refresh button was overloaded and not working.  It works now, but it was not operating correctly while under load.

Apologies - I thought people didn't try the refresh. I haven't seen that before - I guess BTCT hasn't seen an influx of BTC like that before either.

It was fair because the issuer gets to set the rules, they had a price they wanted to IPO at and they had a set amount of funds they wanted to raise.

"Real world" IPOs work in a similar fashion. Just because you wanted 200 shares, doesn't mean you get them - you bid for them and find out the day or so before the IPO whether or not you get your full allotment.

Except for the fact that people couldn't get their funds into the system because of the glitch.  If not for the glitch, then I would agree with you. However, most people got about 40% of what they bid, which is reasonable.


It would have meant more money for them, sure.  But they valued their company at 10k BTC for a reason. Presumably that's that they actually think it's worth at the moment.

If they'd allowed a speculative runup in price, the value would have become ridiculous and it only would have dropped after the the shares started to sell, which would have made a lot of the people who did buy shares pissed off - and you'd just be taking money from people with more money then sense.

Having a company's price jump up after IPO makes the company "look good", at least in the real stock market, while having it collapse after an IPO makes it "look bad".

They may also not have been able to actually spend the money right away anyway, although it seems like if their first chip works they could have used the extra money for a bigger initial run and more production capacity to get their additional chips online faster.

IMO, they should have just issued more shares to fill demand, and used the money for bigger wafer runs and for doing their next gen chip at a smaller feature size.

I think it didn't make much sense, because it was easily gamed if you had enough funds.
I want 100, there are 2x bids, I bid for 200 I get 100 anyway (and suckers who didn't have enough funds, got less).
I wouldn't call that fair.

Honestly I have no idea why didn't they just fill the higher bids, after all it was market price...
Since I've already read someone against this method, I'd like to know why.

you think nobody thought to press refresh button   , be serious.  Balance only became visible after pressing withdrawal for 0.001.

Arrogant, it is, Sir.

No, the refresh button didn't help. And probably got hit more than a million times during the bug.

Only a fake withdrawal would fix the balance bug, and the info was given out after the cutoff.

Anyway, we accepted bad luck (hopefully that was just that), so at least be decent.

The refresh button wasn't working at that point, for some reason. I definitely clicked the refresh button a bunch of times, and it didn't do anything.

Still, I'm glad it didn't work since I'm sure I would have ended up with far fewer shares if there had been a complete free for all.

There is a "refresh" button next to account balance - anyone that didn't think to try it when looking at the wallet really seems to not be trying all that hard. Idiosyncratic, yes. Bug, no I don't think so. Somehow the rest of us have been dealing with it for many months now.

Oh please.  The whole point of bitcoin is that it's cryptographically secure, that it's a P2P system run algorithmically with no central point of trust. You don't need to have confidence in anything other then the algorithm itself in order to be sure that they won't get taken away from you or inflated away.

The bitcoin stock exchanges are the exact opposite.  They are centrally controlled.  Just look at what happened with GLBSE. The exchanges may be fun, and they couldn't exist without bitcoin. But the bitcoin system itself would be just fine without them. KnC, HashFast, Avalon and others were able to build chips without needing to raise funds on bitcoin stock exchanges.

Read the BTCT terms of service. They clearly state that the exchange is for "entertainment purposes only".  Claiming that you're worried they're going to sell shares and stop caring about the company when they could also just run off with all the money anyway is completely absurd.

Oh well, whatever.  If you want to sit around and panic about it go ahead I guess.


Seriously, they could have made over a million dollars by doing a normal bidding process but chose to sell at their specified rate. A few people missed out being able to flood the market and then whined and cried they weren't able to use huge stacks of coins to force everyone else out. I think the share distribution worked out really well.



Legal value where?  Do you think the government is actually going to let you sue if you're not happy with the performance of these shares? And what court are you going to sue them in?  In China?  In Belize? In whatever country you're from?  The fact that you agreed to the T&C is going to be a huge impediment to actually getting a judgement against anyone.

On the other hand, if a company actually does something completely illegal then you might be prosecuted for fraud, or whatever. Sure. I certainly wouldn't recommend trying to scam anyone.

But ultimately these exchanges run on trust.  They are not real exchanges with a real SEC that can come in and fine people if they screw up. Don't invest if you don't trust the companies

ActM has seen over 1000% ROI in just a couple of months and I have no doubts whatsoever that Labcoin will as well. You were wrong about ActM and you will be proven wrong about Labcoin too.