Topic: Rebranding and Relaunching (MT)Gox.com (Read 2306 times)

these things are completely different.  The growth opportunities of these companies are completely different. 

Not to mention buying a bitcoin exchange would be like buying an elephant.  Sure it might have a steady stream of revenue from visitors who want to see but if your business isn't in the animal business then feeding, housing, and all the other issues an elephant brings on won't make it worth it for the peanuts.  Unless you are a zoo or circus of course, then you might do okay.

So no, facebook, google, or any other big name company outside of finance, and a narrow niche at that, don't make sense.

The thought of an eldritch abomination like PayPal getting its claws into Bitcoin fills me with more fear than a million Goxes.

More FUD please. A conspiracy theory or two would be nice. An ad hominem attack on Mark's weight would further reinforce your position. The more angry you sound the more convincing your argument will ultimately be. Maybe combine the two tactics and litter some four letter words in there too. Don't forget the frappuccinos.

This forum has no place for logic and reason. We have markets to short, noobs to scare and bills to pay.

Ok sarcasm off

Looking at this completely objectively with my Spock Hat on, I think you make a lot of good points. And I hope you're right.

It's funny how big shots like facebook spend 1 billion dollars on Instagram which have no revenue and companies like PayPal can't spend the same amount on a proven profitable business model like a bitcoin exchange.

For me the only way out is Gox being acquired by some big company. This does not seem too hard considering they would need something like 600 million to clean up the alleged mess and start fresh.


EDIT: Also acording to that leaked report the Gox annual revenue is superior to WhatsApp which was bought by facebook for 16 billion.

http://www.quora.com/WhatsApp-Messenger/How-much-revenue-is-WhatsApp-generating

Confirming it's more or less legit, but not explicitly denying the figures are FUD?

Hmm. Who could possibly have a vested interest in maintaining that perception?

OH HAI GUYS YEAH WE GOT ACQUIRED BUT NOW YOU SOLD ALL YOUR BTC's I NEED TO TELL YOU THERE WAS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT HERP

I agree.  MT does say that the document didn't come from them.  Not sure why people keep saying this is proof that they are still out the 750k BTC.  IMO, the much more dubious option happened where they bought tons of coins at the bottom and will make a come back etc.  I am hoping at least

Still unclear where that came from: Mark K said not Gox

EDIT: and he suggests it might have been put out to damage the situation.

I think he means they could have bought up the Gox BTC IOUs, reducing MtGox bitcoin liabilities for a fraction of the market price.  The same thing could be happening at BitcoinBuilder right now: buying 8 Gox BTCs for 1 real BTC, thereby further reducing MtGox liabilities.

If the 750,000 BTC loss is not true, and if MtGox is not that insolvent, this process may be an effective and legal way to give willing Gox depositors a "hair cut" and return the company to solvency.  

Let's pretend that MtGox is only out 40,000 BTC rather than 750,000.  Then wouldn't it be nice if you could cancel that obligation using only 5,000 real BTC?  Wouldn't it be a good idea to "leak" a scary document so that people think that getting 10 - 20 cents on the dollar is a "good deal"?

Of course, this is pure speculation on my part. 

If the public sold goxBTC and gave up on these for the buyers, even IF there "are no coins" there at all, the liability of coins had been reduced, instead of owning the REAL coins to MTGox's customers, these customers are left with either less coins and some Fiat as liable from the company.

So basically, even if there are 0 coins on MTGox, and the trade is happening where every bit of "coin" is being sold to a single entity, then there is 0 coin liabilities from that moment on, only fiat, and the fiat liability is reduced as well because of the price of the coins.

So, you see, it DOES help A LOT in terms of taking-over and deleting debt to do exactly what happened in the past few weeks on the MTGox's exchange, assuming 3rd party/ies that are taking over MTGox are the one/s who bought these coins, or a better term, this "debt".

Bank Bailout just with Bitcoin.

There are no coins at Gox, they don't exist, no one bought anything.

So much for the buffoons claiming it was an obvious fake.

It does look like there may be (or might have been) some kind of takeover in the pipeline.

But sadly the way this is playing out doesn't give confidence.

That said, despite the understandable negativity on here there must be big players at least looking at the opportunity. With all their customer accounts there must be a way to turn it around if someone wanted to.

But does someone want to?

I may be starting to dream now but imagine how good it would be also for the image of Bitcoin (which absurdly is being tarnished now in the press) if "leaders" of the community rescued Gox. That would be nice!

Especially if the trades were done in under $250 and not $500:)

It's peanuts for this big fishes, to pay for each of the 750kBTC a fair value of $500 to the customers. So I won't be suprised if Gox will be acquired by a big US company. Lets say: Goldman Sachs...    

This just hit the news,

You should all read:
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/02/26/irc-chat-with-mark-karpeles-confirms-leaked-documents-authenticity-mt-gox-currently-seeking-bail-out/

Why? what significant difference does that make?
As I see it, the leak helped the team that is taking over to buy a lot more cheap coins on MTGox trading platform in the early hours of Japan's morning. As clearly, someone bought a HUGE amount of super cheap coins during that time, right after the leak and right before the shut down. Coincidence? I think not. So I think the "leak" was intentional and beneficial.

Please explain why you think otherwise

i think people were interesting in acquiring gox, but after the report leaked i don't think that will happen anymore

I think that there is good chance for rebranding and a different team taking over (MT)Gox.com and within a month or so everything will be "ok" or even better.

Some points and evidence:
1. The leaked document was published Before the website halted trading and shut down. While the document itself has a schedule for the shut down and halt of trade to the exact time (I.E morning time in Japan, Tuesday the 25th).
2. The Gox.com evidence is pretty strong as well; I.E the redirect to MTGox.com, the name of Mark showing on the registry within the last few days and of course the fact that a 3-letters domain is very expensive. For those who don't know, there is no 3-letters combination that is not taken already in the .com space, and possibly in the .net as well.
3. The amount of Bitcoins that was traded during the super low prices on MTGox are around 750,000 btc.
4. Hours before the document was leaked MTGox had a surge of bidding coming in for $100-$110, it was about 15-20k BTC bidding war. As if someone("s") knew people are going to sell massively to those low prices. Furthermore, after the price went down and those 15-20k BTCs were sold on the way down, another ~10K were bought on the way up. This was a super unusual activity in terms of size, even for these last weeks which had huge volumes. This means there is a connection between the document and the trade on MTGox, which clearly has a link to a potential success with the #1 bullet on the document itself.
5. MTGox said that they want to "will provide more information as soon as possible to keep everyone in the loop."  Which sounds like there is something secretive going on behind the scenes that only few knows about. It fits well with a new team taking over or a major security issue or both.
6. When a company say what MTGox has been saying in the past few weeks about re-enabling withdrawals repeatedly... They have liabilities, legal liabilities, because in a future court case if it can be demonstrated that they had no way and/or intention on doing so, then they mislead the public using official statements. That can very easily help a "bad faith" liability charge to be accepted in court which would make the management personally responsible. In other words, it is inconsistent with many of the FUD being spread, while it is very consistent with a new team taking over and/or making a joint venture to rebrand and/or restructure etc.
7. The document suggested that the support of MTGox will be available during the shutdown in order to allow "customers" to ask for their accounts' history/records etc, which is of extreme importance(!) and I sent an email using the still technically working support and got verification email and automatic responses as if everything is still working in terms of support. I haven't had a personal reply from the support, but again it shows consistency with the document.

There are a few more notes to be taken, but I think I listed enough,

Obviously, as I do hold some GOXBTC I do also Hope, it is the case and that us, MTGox's customers will see our money back. I really do.
By the way, at first I accepted it was all lost, but now with all the new evidence surfacing, it seems hope is not lost, there is a good chance that a rebrand and a new team is exactly what is going on, on top of making the customers whole.

I do not confuse hope with facts and odds with evidence. If you stay nutral and just look at the information in front of you, the most logical and consistent thesis to be made is a take-over and/or rebranding and/or restructuring. At this point I would like to also add the fact that MTGox could have disclosed the (in)solvency issue many, many times - that fact they chose not to, shows that most chances are there is a very serious issue related to it, an issue that might be resolved with a take-over and therefore requires silence until the other party/ies are ready to reveal everything.

This is also consistent with what Mark said here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-bitcoin-mtgox-ceo-idUSBREA1O12T20140225 specifically this part :