[LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 912.

Blue777

sr. member

Activity: 245

Merit: 250

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 28, 2013, 10:16:07 AM

Quote from: JMG on July 28, 2013, 07:49:00 AM

Question:
1. So how much percentage of profits is LabCoin planning to pay as a dividend?

"All shares are entitled to an equal percentage of dividends"
"Pay regular dividends amounting to a percentual share of ownership in the company on a bi-weekly basis."

There is no mention of the percentage of profits but only dividends.

2. To clarify, the shareholders have the ownership of LabCoin without voting right. Is that correct?

Thanks!

1. This will be clarified shortly but what we are working with is between 30-40% reinvestment fund at least in the short term and 60-70% directly towards dividend paid by-weekly or weekly.

2. We are defining this as well as we speak. We have gotten some requests for the possibility of selling "board seats" (ASICMINER style) where x amount of shares owned by a single share holder would equal a % of voting rights. It is a little complicated since we do not want to make decision making a long and complicated process, while still ensuring that share holders feel secure that we are developing in a direction that the majority is comfortable with.

60%-70% of profits will send to 10 million or 7 million shareholds?
Thanks

superduh

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

where did sam go? he was the front and now he's disappeared?

TheSwede75

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: Mabsark on July 29, 2013, 12:27:35 AM

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 29, 2013, 12:08:10 AM

Quote from: FloatesMcgoates on July 28, 2013, 10:58:09 PM

Can you elaborate on why you are going with the 65nm process?

With ActiveMining proceeding with a 28nm process, how do you plan to compete?

The short answer here is that we simply do not believe that investing heavily in the absolute "bleeding edge" of technology is wise or necessary to achieve competitive results or profitability.

Labcoin is not a project that is primarily focused on developing the absolutely most "high tech" ASIC possible, but rather to reach the market quickly with the best hash rate per invested dollar.

If you had to choose between ordering a high density mining chip from butterfly labs or a well designed multicore chip based on a technically older design with lower density from Bitfury, what would you choose right now? (Not to mention a year ago, when Butterfly Labs started their process).

With parallel development teams and established contacts with foundries and manufacturing plants in China, we simply see more profitability in developing and producing chips and mining equipment based on tried and available technologies, then risking investor funds and delays in targeting next generation tech.

I hope this at least somewhat answers your question.

28nm isn't next gen tech, it's current gen. Also, BFL use 65nm whereas BitFury use 55nm. The comparison you should be making is between KnC on 28nm and BitFury on 55nm which have similare efficiency.

As for the question of what you would choose, I'd say the one which provides the best value, regardless of process used or the efficiency of the ASIC. An inefficient ASIC priced low enough can offer far more value than a higher priced, highly efficient ASIC.

I'm looking forward to the IPO.

You are of course absolutely correct. The comparison I was after was that Butterly Labs chose to develop an ASIC based on what when they started over 1 year ago was "next gen" at the time (I would argue that until KNC or any other ASIC provider shows an actual working unit/chip based on 28nm, it is still next generation), while Bitfury chose to develop using current generation technology (more or less) and has managed to reach market at almost the same time as Butterfly Labs, at a more attractive price point and with seemingly better availability of chips.

Between the two, its hard to not (as a customer or investor/share holder) want to say that The choice of developing a more effective chip based on available technology carries less risk, and plenty of opportunity for profitability without taking the risk involved in developing for "next gen".

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Asset admin lock has been removed.

The issuer lock is still in place. The issuer can unlock it whenever they believe the prospectus is complete and they are ready to open voting by the site mods.

Cheers.

Mabsark

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1004

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 29, 2013, 12:08:10 AM

Quote from: FloatesMcgoates on July 28, 2013, 10:58:09 PM

Can you elaborate on why you are going with the 65nm process?

With ActiveMining proceeding with a 28nm process, how do you plan to compete?

The short answer here is that we simply do not believe that investing heavily in the absolute "bleeding edge" of technology is wise or necessary to achieve competitive results or profitability.

Labcoin is not a project that is primarily focused on developing the absolutely most "high tech" ASIC possible, but rather to reach the market quickly with the best hash rate per invested dollar.

If you had to choose between ordering a high density mining chip from butterfly labs or a well designed multicore chip based on a technically older design with lower density from Bitfury, what would you choose right now? (Not to mention a year ago, when Butterfly Labs started their process).

With parallel development teams and established contacts with foundries and manufacturing plants in China, we simply see more profitability in developing and producing chips and mining equipment based on tried and available technologies, then risking investor funds and delays in targeting next generation tech.

I hope this at least somewhat answers your question.

28nm isn't next gen tech, it's current gen. Also, BFL use 65nm whereas BitFury use 55nm. The comparison you should be making is between KnC on 28nm and BitFury on 55nm which have similare efficiency.

As for the question of what you would choose, I'd say the one which provides the best value, regardless of process used or the efficiency of the ASIC. An inefficient ASIC priced low enough can offer far more value than a higher priced, highly efficient ASIC.

I'm looking forward to the IPO.

TheSwede75

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: burnside on July 28, 2013, 10:46:02 PM

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 28, 2013, 03:13:17 PM

Q: We are considering asking Burnside for the option of "direct shares" that could be 'removed' from BTCT.CO and traded outside of the exchange. Is there interest for a independent owner registry of 'Labcoin 100' shares (1 Labcoin 100 share would be equal to 100 Labcoin shares as listed on BTCT.CO) for easier off-exchange trading of larger blocks of shares for larger share holders?

I don't have a problem with it but I do have a few points that may help in making the decision:

1) Internal transfers on BTCT.co (user to user) are free. (so if you want to privately transfer a large chunk, no problem...)
2) As someone pointed out, asset lists are available at any time via API and are mailed out a couple times a day, so losing track in an exchange failure is not likely.
3) Keeping track internally has not been fun for Friedcat/ASICMINER. In fact, it's been a bit of a nightmare for him trying to track all the direct shares. (primarily because direct share transfers are a PITA.)

Cheers.

Burnside,
All very good points and I believe that answers a lot of questions. As I understand it is also easy enough for any major share holder (if they so wish) to introduce a security of their own on BTCT.CO or any other exchange with their own share-ownership as the asset, allowing the creation of pass through shares or larger share blocks for trading.

TheSwede75

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: FloatesMcgoates on July 28, 2013, 10:58:09 PM

Can you elaborate on why you are going with the 65nm process?

With ActiveMining proceeding with a 28nm process, how do you plan to compete?

The short answer here is that we simply do not believe that investing heavily in the absolute "bleeding edge" of technology is wise or necessary to achieve competitive results or profitability.

Labcoin is not a project that is primarily focused on developing the absolutely most "high tech" ASIC possible, but rather to reach the market quickly with the best hash rate per invested dollar.

If you had to choose between ordering a high density mining chip from butterfly labs or a well designed multicore chip based on a technically older design with lower density from Bitfury, what would you choose right now? (Not to mention a year ago, when Butterfly Labs started their process).

With parallel development teams and established contacts with foundries and manufacturing plants in China, we simply see more profitability in developing and producing chips and mining equipment based on tried and available technologies, then risking investor funds and delays in targeting next generation tech.

I hope this at least somewhat answers your question.

lophie

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1001

Unlimited Free Crypto

So when exactly ill the IPO be unlocked? I have a couple of spare coins around here Wink

FloatesMcgoates

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Can you elaborate on why you are going with the 65nm process?

With ActiveMining proceeding with a 28nm process, how do you plan to compete?

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 28, 2013, 03:13:17 PM

Q: We are considering asking Burnside for the option of "direct shares" that could be 'removed' from BTCT.CO and traded outside of the exchange. Is there interest for a independent owner registry of 'Labcoin 100' shares (1 Labcoin 100 share would be equal to 100 Labcoin shares as listed on BTCT.CO) for easier off-exchange trading of larger blocks of shares for larger share holders?

I don't have a problem with it but I do have a few points that may help in making the decision:

1) Internal transfers on BTCT.co (user to user) are free. (so if you want to privately transfer a large chunk, no problem...)
2) As someone pointed out, asset lists are available at any time via API and are mailed out a couple times a day, so losing track in an exchange failure is not likely.
3) Keeping track internally has not been fun for Friedcat/ASICMINER. In fact, it's been a bit of a nightmare for him trying to track all the direct shares. (primarily because direct share transfers are a PITA.)

Cheers.

TheSwede75

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: blackswan on July 28, 2013, 07:55:48 PM

I'm looking forward to the development of this asset. Typically, how long is the approval process for an IPO on BTCT.CO?

From what I know it can be anything between a few hours to several days. We are aiming to get approved early this week. As soon as approval is given we will set a time for release of the entire IPO batch of BTC7.000 (7.000.000 shares @ 0.001 BTC each)

piecinitup

full member

Activity: 158

Merit: 100

Missed a couple good IPOs so I'm excited to watch this one.

servicelabs

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

itkylin.com

Watching too.

blackswan

member

Activity: 82

Merit: 10

I'm looking forward to the development of this asset. Typically, how long is the approval process for an IPO on BTCT.CO?

TheSwede75

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

For now, I think the plan is to:

1. Keep the IPO at 7 million for liquidity.
2. Consider the concept of board seats. We are weighting the options as we speak.
3. Allow for (when this can be arranged with Burnside) direct shares referred to as 'LABCOON100' for trading outside of stock exchanges. We will look into how to facilitate the creation of 'LABCOIN100' from larger blocks of shares that then will be de-registered from trading on BTCT.CO and handled through private cold bookkeeping.

Update coming soon. We are also ready to reveal estimated market pricing for our 130nm chips (Mass production cost) and I can reveal that we will be setting a completely new "low" for pricing of USD/GH with these chips once first-run is done and we go into full production.

nycgoat

member

Activity: 117

Merit: 10

7m as opposed to 700k is great for liquidity, but not if they are going to keep track of "direct" shares. Maybe 7m could be released, but they would have to be turned to "direct" shares in blocks of 100?? 1,000??

Board seats would be excellent.

Direct shares should be a definite addition. This would remove a lot of CP risk.

AM4Bitcoin

full member

Activity: 189

Merit: 100

1) 700.000
2) Yes , definitely
3) For the people that want this, why not. But since you get updated shareholder lists from btct everyday i dont think that a shutdown or something else would hurt to much.

auto2nr1

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: twentyseventy on July 28, 2013, 03:22:19 PM

I'd personally rather see 7M shares as opposed to 700K, in the name of liquidity.

+1

Franktank

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 28, 2013, 03:13:17 PM

Information under 'details' on BTCT.CO (locked security 'LABCOIN') updated. Questions and comments welcome.

I also have a few questions for the forum:

Q: What would you rather see? 7 million shares @ 0.001 OR 700.000 shares @ 0.01 ?
A: I suggest 700.000 shares (1 million overall); if further dilution is required, share splitting would be an option

Q: Is there interest in "Board seat" style offering where for example 250.000 shares would give the owner the right to join 'virtual board meetings' and represent share holders in project management and decision making etc?
A: I vote this; however we need the definitive number for "board seats"

Q: We are considering asking Burnside for the option of "direct shares" that could be 'removed' from BTCT.CO and traded outside of the exchange. Is there interest for a independent owner registry of 'Labcoin 100' shares (1 Labcoin 100 share would be equal to 100 Labcoin shares as listed on BTCT.CO) for easier off-exchange trading of larger blocks of shares for larger share holders?
A: I second this. While burnside has yet to prove otherwise, there are some that would like that option of "direct shares" to remove any possibility of "3rd party intervention."

Remember, these are just questions based on suggestions from forum members.

Replies above in red.

twentyseventy

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1000

I'd personally rather see 7M shares as opposed to 700K, in the name of liquidity.

Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 912. (Read 1079974 times)