Topic: SCAM IPO [Bakewell] - Finally, a 'transparent' investment that will 'grow'! - page 14. (Read 47857 times)

Yeah he owns out of 432 out of 5928 shares, so this dividend would earn him 0.29 BTC. Things must be dire
Also, for fun

Voted Yea:4895
Voted Nay:433

so 1 share (other than usagi himself) voted for keeping the CPA contract. 99.97% voted against it. Fun stat.

It seems obvious why usagi is pushing for the dividend since they own shares in Bakewell 

Per: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-ipo-bakewell-finally-a-transparent-investment-that-will-grow-104489 you're perfectly willing to change the effective terms of the contract after establishment.

As per multiple interpretations of You agreed to refund Ian pending support by shareholders. Right now you look like you're just changing your mind because it didn't work out how you thought it would.

If you would like to argue the interpretation that's one thing, but some crazy and convoluted scheme to push a dividend just seems petty at best.

To do anything of the sort they would have to put the initial investment into the mix, even at the discounted IPO offering (10% bonus) money is still going towards the setup of BAKEWELL. It's just one way early investors can get out.

That being said, it wouldn't help things along any.

Also for usagi's benefit (and anyone still under contract with CPA); insurance contracts are unilateral. Only the insurer makes legally enforceable promises in the contract and only the insurer can be held liable for breach of contract.

There is a possibility someone is wrecking IPO's on purpose. They buy a few shares and purposefully sell below the IPO price to prevent the issuer from raising funds and cause the failure of the IPO.

I wonder if glbse could "lock" trading on an IPO untill a specified time has passed ?

Oh - and for usagi's benefit, a contract is NOT broken or defaulted on when both parties to the contract agree to vary it or waive a term in it.

I can see arguments for both sides here:

On the one hand, the contract strictly interpreted would tend towards usagi sending the money to the shareholders.

On the other hand "send the money back" - which usagi agreed to - clearly means to where it came from.

Given that both parties to the contract (usagi/CPA and bakewell's shareholders) agreed to waive the terms of the contract, I'd have to end on Ian's side.  After all - usagi's own companies happily change their contracts with their shareholders (BMF seems to do it on a regular basis) and never bother getting the contract amended on GLBSE - so any new investors really don't have a clue what the contract of the week actually is.

Given that when usagi/CPA made an insurance contract with BMF (its own company) NEITHER side adhered to the contract (BMD didn't claim when entitled to, CPA never paid out, BMF stopped paying premiums - without any mention of either default by usagi), it's sudden desire to actually stick to the strict terms of a contract is hypocritical at a minimum.  It's also totally petty - but I wouldn't have expected anything different.

Having said all that, in Ian's shoes I'd almost certainly just dividend the 4 BTC to the shareholders anyway.  But that should be his choice, not usagi's.

Ian, you believed that your 4 bitcoins were in danger of being lost by being in CPA. You had no access to that money. Nothing has changed other than you are reducing the value that you perceived was at risk. He is giving the money back. This is an interpretation of the contract you signed.

What is the real problem here? The capital you had available to you has not changed, and you have secured what you think of as a better place for your investor's money.

Also, stop making those damn single posts with the smiley under them. They are fucking annoying.

Who knows, but I do see this:

I am against continuing the insurance, and in favor of closing the CPA account.

Does this mean I vote YES, or NO, on the motion?

The motion is available for voting on GLBSE, and it expires on October 1st. I also urge everyone to vote.

The "insurance" was a bad idea.

I know Ian did it in good faith and to inspire confidence, so I am not writing this as a stab against him, but think it through; any funds that are held by Usagi can not be used by Ian to grow Bakewell and will not produce any ROI, nor interest for  anyone (except possibly Usagi, should he manage not to squander them).

Therefore, its no different than when you as an investor would buy proportionally less shares, and keep the rest in your own wallet in "escrow". Why would you want usagi to do that for you? Because that is the only difference,  if they are in your own wallet, they are safe or you can chose to use them whenever you want. Now those coins are Usagi's, you wont have access to them until 2013 and my guess is you will never see them back.

Ian so far has been as open as he can be, he is fully verified at GLBSE and while Im not convinced of the profitability of mining,  I would trust him 10x more to take proper care of my investment than I would trust the GLBSE unverified and almost certainly scamming Usagi who has already proven that his CPA insurance will not honor its contracts when he feels like it (see BMF saga).

So, I would urge investors to vote for this motion; dont force Ian to throw your money away on a scam, and keep in mind that usagi has a non trivial position in BAKEWELL and you can guess how he will vote.

Also, $460 is simply too much to pay for a 7970 these days, even a GE. Memory Express actually has a vanilla 7970 on sale right now for $340 plus a $15MIR, even if those don't really factor in for bulk purchases like this. It's OOS online, but I've seen it go down to that level every couple weeks. I know you want to get hashing right now, but even with free electricity a 7970 will only get you about $3/day.

You might want to consider not waiting until you have 2500 shares sold to do each rig purchase. I know selling gaming computers seems like a nice idea, but I really think you'll have a tough time averaging even $1400 when you go to sell them. If that was the case, you'd need to mine at current difficulty and price for 100 days just to pay $600 in depriciation per rig.

If you want immediate dividends, I'd really consider buying used mining rigs. At current prices $2000 could pretty easily find two used open air 5x5870 rigs that would do 2GH/s each and would likely maintain their value in resale much better. It's just too late in the GPU mining game to be paying the penalty to drive new hardware off the lot.

I didn't go through the whole shopping list, but the cards and power supply sell at the same price from vuugo - but you'd wait and pay for shipping, and get only manufacturers' warranties. So, it seems to me that overall this was a good deal.

That fair, but for $400 than you spent on one system you could purchase a 5x7970 rig from Newegg that would hash more and would probably resell just as well. I think you're underestimating how hard it's going to be to sell a dozen 7970 CF rigs into a market like Edmonton. I would guess that you would be better off for speed resale going with high density, and then parting out and selling later.

You could not build yourself?  I'm just asking, I don't know your technical skill, but I thought (ASSumed) you could build the rigs yourself.
That could have saved $70 * 2 = $140
Plus would make a great weekend project. And hashing would start sooner.


Expense on Windows 7  and on SSD = blah  . Yes it adds to resell, but not needed for mining.

I never sold all the shares of BitcoinRS either so i simply pulled them from the market and only sell when theres bids at the IPO price or higher. This has allowed some people to make a small profit.

Never sell your remaining shares below IPO price and try to keep a regular dividend schedule.

Theres  been a few people who have sold down their initial shares and screwed over their investors. See the DMC thread 

Maybe treat each next rig as a separate company, so no dilution of current shares?

Administrative overhead though.

Barring that maybe patience has to be it. Demonstrate the awesomeness of the company and part with shares only when good offers are made, content to chug along forever as a one-rig company if one rig is all the initial sale of shares sufficed to finance...

(Me I am a one-GPU company and have been for over a year, Interested in financing an expansion of my operation? )

-MarkM-

Maybe a special IPO Mode would be a useful feature in an exchange?

Set an IPO period, a week or however long you want.

Have the underwriters buy the shares, so the company knows it is getting the capital it is asking for as that is part of what underwriters do / what underwriters are for.

Set IPO mode with IPO price, so no offers less than IPO price can be made.

Then the underwriters sell into the market so people who only offered the flat IPO price might not even get any as people more eager might outbid them for all the shares.

Once the IPO period is over, the floor on offers is removed and its market-as-usual.

If people think the IPO is overpriced they can simply sit out the IPO period and put in lowball offers once normal trading commences.

-MarkM-