Topic: SCAM IPO [Bakewell] - Finally, a 'transparent' investment that will 'grow'! - page 5. (Read 47798 times)

Investing in other companies on bitfunder or other marketplaces is too volatile. And not as liquid as we would want. So investing idle coin elsewhere is a bad idea. If we have a surplus, then the best investment is buying back stocks.

What we should ideally do is have this goal: 30% dividend that G&M earns should pay for 1 new hardware every month (and eventually buy 1 new hardware during every dividend payment).

Until we reach that stage, we could make use of loans to meet the goal. And then every 3 months, sell new stock to pay these loans off.

Here is what I would do:

1. I believe that existing shareholders should be given the first right of refusal to maintain their position in the company. I should be given the chance if I want to maintain ownership of x% of the company or not. So take an average of the stock price over the last X days and discount it by 15%. And determine the number of shares Bakewell will need to sell for further growth - based on that price. And then send an email to the existing share holders offering them the first right to buy shares equivalent to their current position at that rate. For eg: if I own 60 shares (1% of the company) - and 3000 more shares are issued - I should be given an option to buy 30 more shares at the determined discounted price.

2. For any shares that haven't been sold yet, you make an "auction". Where people can list the price they will be willing to buy the shares at. And you let existing share holders know about this auction before others. Let the market determine the price.

I dislike the idea of creating an Ask wall with new equity. Because this screws the existing share holders who want to sell (as it happened to Satoshi Dice shares this past few days.)

Hi,

I invested in Bakewell a few days back because I like what I've read on this thread.

I like the fact that you took a short term loan instead of issuing new equity for that 20btc.
However, if the loan terms are too bad, I can help.
(I don't know what "shark tank deal" means - does that mean we received a sweet deal, or was the loan giver the shark?)

I have 20 bitcoins I can loan out - with 0.1BTC total interest, without a time frame (so its not 0.1BTC interest per month - its total interest whether the loan is repaid in 1 day or 6 months). The only criteria being the loan has to be paid before dividends are restarted (which you seem to be already offering to the current loan giver.)

There's someone around do does that a bit on Bitfunder and BTC.CO.

I'd guess they're a GLBSE refugee who hasn't realised the fee structures are different.  GLBSE had a maker/taker structure - where the person filling the order paid the whole fee.  So there it made sense if you wanted to buy in a tight range to bid 1 satoshi under ask and wait for it be filled - rather than actually fille the order (you saved yourself 0.4% in fees).  Fees don't work like that on Bitfunder (or BTC.CO) but maybe this guy doesn't know that?

That's my guess anyway.  Either that or someone trying to force the price up (i.e. someone with an Ask up) without actually buying any (haven't looked - but if it's a very low quantity bid that could be the case).

What is up with the bid order 1 satoshi less than the lowest ask order? Did somebody mean to lower the ask but accidently put in a buy instead?

Those results are in line with what I'd estimated - that only those getting very early ASICs will really make bank on them.  In his graphs by late batch 2 the Avalons will be struggling to pay for themselves.  And he doesn't seem to have even counted ASICMINER's haspower in (should be 12 TH/s coming online in next few weeks and the production run of chips for a much of bigger batch has already started).

How much is currently in the growth fund? Is it enough to buy one of the Avalon asics?

No, One of the best Thing is the Dividend payout. Its every Time prompt...

Seems like the last dividend was paid on 28 Jan - so its still paying dividends.
Would love to know the plan moving forward however... when and how it'll purchase ASIC mining equipment...

Has Bakewell stopped paying dividends?

That sounds like a good use for the growth fund.

Now that it has been confirmed that an Avalon ASIC has shipped and is working will we be making an ASIC purchase soon?

I imagine that any investments made would need to be very secure. While the requirement may not be to make any large sum, it should be expected that it should not depreciate, if that can be assured to some level then I wouldn't imagine an issue. Though unless a general consensus can be made about the level of risk (that is inherent in investing) it may be best to leave each investment up to a (admittedly tedious) motion requiring some given percent of support (possibly above 51%). It may simply be best to let this extra funds sit in a published address; simple to audit and no depreciation.

New equipment purchases seem like something that should be done from the G&M portion of proceeds, determining which hardware gets bought may be up for discussion and likely depends on what's available at the time of purchase. Hopefully this will be simplified by the time any additional hardware purchases are needed.

It was my impression that a portion of your personal shares were to cover operational expenses. Is this not the case?

Etc etc should probably be elaborated on, and now's a good time to do it, though I can't think of anything else to add personally. It may also be a good time to enumerate what can and can't be done with respect to certain issues that have come up previously, at least including voting of G&M shares and transfer to different exchanges (both with and without closure of the existing exchange).

I didn't properly address this.

Shares don't vote (or abstain).  Share-holders vote.

Those shares have no ownership so no vote (there's noone with the entitlement to vote with them).  In the same way treasury shares don't vote.  They could be considered as belonging to the fund as a whole - in which case their voting should reflect the desire of the fund as a whole (i.e. all other votes).  But in that case them voting only reinforces a decision already made - and adds nothing to the voting process.

There wouldn't be anything wrong in principle with a board voting with those shares - but then you get into the messy situation of how the board votes: and making sure that control of the company can't be obtained by a minority of shareholders who get to control board votes.  In practice it's too large a chunk of votes to give control to a small board without effectively removing all voting power from normal shareholders.

Boards should make recommendations, shareholder approve those recommendations.  The person (or group) making a proposal shouldn't also be given the power to enact it.

Still not heard ANY explanation of what useful function those shares offer.  Some while back there was some vague "they'll be useful in the future" type comment - but with no attempt to define that usefulness (and, more specifically, why it needs shares to exist) at all.  You can keep dodging that issue all you want - but the most significant answer to your latest question ("How do we sell more shares?") lies in providing the transparency and equity the topic of the thread claims.  So either explain how those shares benefit investors or get rid of them (the shares, not the investors).

The Supervisory Board should not be a replacement for Shareholder Votings or Motions.
Its a control committee for finance, bakewell and ian.
For exmaple before ian buy hardware or buy shares back he has to commit the Supervisory Board...

its time to make Bakewell more attractive and realy transparent!

And the M&G Shares are only to organize the payments for m&g, you could also cut of 30% and pay the rest out as divident...

greets Chuck

I agree with Deprived, there is no reason for these shares to exist.

Any uses of the growth fund should be passed by a shareholder vote. Instead of having a "board" of the largest shareholders, have a board consisting of all shareholders. Have shareholders join in meetings held in IRC or somewhere.

There's no such examples - as no regular company puts aside shares just to calculate what 30% of revenue is.

I've still to hear any reasoning on why those shares need to exist at all - what is it they allow the company to do that it couldn't do without them?  What benefit do they offer to compensate for the mess they make of voting?

+1

1. The M&G Shares cant vote and nobody can vote with them.
2. a Supervisory Board elected from the shareholder check and allow expenses and investments!

greets chuck

He did the same thing with the last motion. He did it for days to get everyone to vote on his fake motion. It was more than ridiculous.
Good luck luring newbies to Bakewell. Only a fool or a newbie would buy shares.

"Guys look I am important!"