Topic: SANDSTORM: - A Collective Investment Vehicle for BTC. - (Read 35716 times)

I'm of the view that people are responsible for their own investments the mantra of the forum is to watch out for scams etc. While sandstorm was not a scam people buying shares always need to remember that their is a risk here, that said I do agree the closure procedure was not followed in gross violation of the contract.

There's a lot of defensive types lashing out with words like "idiots" and "morons", spruiking their lines like they're the only people entitled to a viewpoint.

Let's put things in perspective, in the regulated investment world when funds lose substantial amounts of investor monies there is often public outcry, certainly bad publicity, usually accusations of incompetence or malfeasance, sometimes lawsuits and occasionally criminal or civil penalties. I don't care if anyone likes it or not, but I'll advocate the view that existing regulation over fiat investments needs to extend across crypto-currency investments. I don't like thieves, scammers, swindlers, ponzi promoters, lairs, blowhards and one-eyed verbosity merchants. Regulation isn't a magic wand to fix all ills, but it puts a framework in place that elevates transparency and accountability and that helps both the fund operators and the fund investors.

While it's interesting that the majority of people putting the boot into the OP from the earliest pages of this thread appear to be competitors or others who jumped on the troll train, those commenting over the last few pages are those that lost money. In case you've skimmed my previous remarks, I exited this fund rapidly after it started dropping, I'd do the same for stocks, futures or currency while trading and with increases elsewhere in the bitcoin 'investment' environment I had a net gain on my overall position, so I don't have any particular axe to grind, I certainly didn't report anyone to the regulator but I did comment on the fact that allegedly others did report and I made subsequent contextual comments about the lack of bitcoin regulation in Australia.

There's a dichotomy between those that are happy for bitcoin to live in the shadows with the criminal element pervading and those who'd prefer to see bitcoin become more mainstream. The currency cannot live on the horns of a dilemma between prohibition and regulation forever. Maybe we can call it 'growing pains' but it doesn't take a genius to work out that with the all-pervasive narrative that's driving tax treaties globally, the regulatory environment isn't going to be opaque forever, so whether you're an investor or a promoter, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, but the law is coming, sure as John Wayne rode round the hill, rifle in hand, sheriff badge pinned to his chest, FATCA Act in his saddlebag.

I'm sure many operators will make an easy transition to a more regulated environment and the better ones will find increasing support from investors who recognise those fund manager's duty of care over their investments and their ability to translate this into positive investment returns. There's other players who already aren't finding the march of regulation to their liking and for one reason or another, they've lost the faith of investors, been forced to close their doors or absconded before the law closes in.

So all-in-all, with investment losses and regulatory pressure on business practices, it's not surprising that some people are getting hot under the collar.

There is certainly a large number of morons posting at the moment. While Jmutch was the last person who should be investing other people's money, people who lost money in his fund lost it because they made a terrible decision to buy in to jmutch's sh*tty fund, even after I gave several warnings before the IPO. He didn't scam you, you scammed yourself for not doing your due diligence.

In short, calling ASIC over this makes you an imbecile who should keep their money in the bank and never ever try to "invest" in anything. Don't be a sore loser, you made a bad choice and you lost. Take the loss and get over it.

you have answered this question right in the same post, in the first line

yes, he did not scam. indeed i do not like the art he closed the whole thing and disappeared without further communication to the community. i understand that Josh was frustrated with such outcome but that's a life. negative things happens sometimes. just running away and hiding should be not an option for serious people.

if someone is willing to win then he/she must be able to lose too. this should be understandable and acceptable by everyone - any parties involved here - but unfortunately that's not the case. AND this is normal btw. not everyone has brain and eggs (together), not meaning Josh here...

you guys are idiots.

He didn't scam anyone. The most he could have run away with was 100BTC. He refunded nearly that amount after like 4 months.

If he wanted to scam, why didn't he run away after the IPO?

Why do you want regulatory pressure on BTC?

Don't you run a fund of some kind bithub? how was sandstorm different? Aren't all of these securities/funds illegal by your definition?

Perhaps I overestimated the intelligence of the BTC community, or at least some people on this forum.

As they say in the Colosseum:

"Let the criminal and civil penalties begin."

It will be interesting to see what if any action the Australian Securities and Investments Commission decides to take. There's a complete absence of regulatory guidance in Australia relating to bitcoins. Just type in 'bitcoin' or 'bitcoins' into the search field on www.asic.gov.au to find out how much investment regulation exists presently.

There is however, the oft-quoted remark by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) that the currency is grandfathered under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 which is 'independent of references to particular currencies':

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-ato-says-bitcoins-have-been-taxable-since-the-get-go-2013-6

The mainstream financial press reported that 'the ATO is confident it can track users in efforts to stop fraud':

http://www.afr.com/p/technology/ato_targets_bitcoin_users_oawpzLQHDz2vEUWtvYLTWI

In the AFR article a senior accountant notes, "The ATO might need a prosecution or similar action against a fraudster to nip any activity in the bud, he added. 'Quite often you need to set an example to deter burgeoning activity of that type. These things can grow quite rapidly and fade away quite rapidly.'"

Only time will tell if SandStorm will be made an example of or whether the case will provide the catalyst for more progressive regulatory guidance. Regulators remaining in the shadows isn't doing anyone any favours.

Update from Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Still conducting their investigation, but they are fully alert about Josh Mutch and his activities and currently looking into this SandStorm scam.

I agree with pancake on some things here

I personally think sandstorm did the right thing .

If any of you bother thinking about what the NAV would have been like after the announcement. my guess is somewhere between 40-60BTC
He could have driven this thing right into the ground. He could have lost all of your money. Instead it looks like he took a personal loss to pay out investors at a fairer price. The NAV before the BTCT shitstorm.

I mean go have a look at smidges track record over the last 8-9 weeks. it's a fucking bloodbath. weeks ago there was like 460btc in smidge, now there is 170btc. 290btc's into the either. mostly thanks to the btct shitstorm.

To you guys that lost money:

This is the BTC world. It is not nice. You will not easily make money. You expect money when you don't even bother looking into the underlying assets of a fund? You rely on that havelock calculator to base your decision? you have to be kidding me right.
Please leave the BTC world before you loose all of your money.

People were buying way above the assets fundamental value. Now they complain when they get burnt. It's bullshit.

I don't like seeing people loose money, but some of the comments here are just ridiculous.

10 satoshi. per wedgie

how could you take that seriously?

behave good here on the forum.

..or?

ass.

kid, you like announcements?
how about to do something by yourself, big boss? not tough enough? :/

and this:


hm.
Pankkake is OK and right but you seem to be a little controversial and speaking about love in others lives.
behave good here on the forum.

I hereby announce a standing bounty of 10 satoshi for each and every wedgie inflicted upon Keyser Soze.

This goes to show that people should really understand what they are doing prior to investing. Secondary market pricing as high as 10x the NAV is not the fault of the asset issuer. Threats of violence against the issuer are completely unwarranted.

Unless it's been changed (unlikely, given it's a standard financial calculation), yield is calculated based on last share price and last dividend... APY = [(Last Div) / (Last Price)] * (# of payments per year).

I'd also recommend reading through a potential investment's plan / prospectus / public thread before dumping your college savings into one of the riskier investments. There are plenty of people here who have already pointed out the serious flaws in this security. Though I agree that there's quite a bit to blame on Josh given his recent behavior, the vast majority of the blame falls to you since you were unable to do your due diligence. There's no reason to attack Havelock here.


I'm not sure shining a light on you is going to help...though enlightenment might.

The precentage is just current price compared with last dividend(s), I think.

Look at this:

Remember: "past performance does not guarantee future results"

I`m glad you understand the business reasons behind Sandstorm ceasing operations, please share your understanding with me, James.

Yesterday Havelock calculated SDSTM as having an Annual Yield of 26.26%. If shutting down the fund and liquidating holdings has any logical rational with that performance what should I expect from HIM (8.00%), KCIM (13.64%), LABCO (6.04%) XBOND (15.21%)?

...Or is the yield calculator on Havelock Investments just fucking borked?

Is it time to race for the exits before "an orderly shutdown" begins on those other funds?

Please illuminate me.

Sorry this has happened to you..

This I truly appreciate, BitHub.



I see now the IPO listed at https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=SDSTM#ui-tabs-3 was ฿0.0010 but the earliest price on the graph at https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=SDSTM#ui-tabs-1 shows ฿0.010837158
The week long hold at that price on the graph would seem to be the IPO sell off before second hand trades began.

The mistake is mine and I see that now. But here is the thing: Ive already said I was naive while you think the blame is mine alone despite Joshuas lies and deception. Your smugness is glaring. You admit you`re a mean person, you were probably not loved as a child. I pity you.

Thx for saying something, this is really terrible and not acceptable and puts Havelock in alot of trouble as well.

Aye it's a pretty shite thing to do to their investors and to you. Kind of opens you up to needless exposure, no?

Havelock Investments Announcement

We understand the business reasons behind Sandstorm ceasing operations and liquidating its holdings to unit holders.  However, we were not informed of this decision by Sandstorm management at any point and have not yet received any communication from them.  We clearly do not find this acceptable.

We're continuing to attempt to contact Josh and will be looking into the closure process and will also be looking into changes to the Havelock Fund Manager interface to restrict what a fund manager can do.  Up until now, all fund managers have acted responsibly and while we don't want to essentially punish all fund managers for the actions of one, we want to ensure investors who use our platform can rely on the funds to have an orderly shutdown if needed.

Again, our issue is not with the fund ceasing to operate but the manner in which it was undertaken.