Topic: SCAM IPO [Bakewell] - Finally, a 'transparent' investment that will 'grow'! - page 8. (Read 47857 times)

That's a fair summary of what happened.  The motion legitimately passed anyway.

Don't make a motion to move development shares - make a motion to get rid of them (existing ones retuirned to treasury and no more issed).  Just put 30% of revenue into development fund then distribute rest - and in future it would be 20 management shares issued for every 50 normal ones sold - they were unneeded just to work out what 30% was: a calculator can be used to do that.

You and Ian obviously have some history going back to GLBSE, I'm loathe to delve into all that, but I will read your post.

Here he's simply voted with maintenance shares that plainly had no vote, and ironically on a motion that would have passed anyway. The problem is the precedent that it's set, since at any time he can create a motion and pass it without shareholders even having a voice. Nobody has an issue with Ian voting his own 20% + whatever he's purchased however he pleases, but the 30% of shares reserved for maintenance do not get to negate a paying shareholder's vote.

I'm not prepared to call him a scammer, I still hope he'll do the right thing. I'm just surprised he's beating down his own company's market cap and spooking his shareholders over something so easily rectified. Ian, create a motion that would require maintenance shares be returned to treasury prior to shareholder votes. If it passes write it into the contract and I'll feel better about holding Bakewell shares long term and I'm sure others would as well. Alternatively you could offer to do away with maintenance shares altogether and simply withhold a portion of dividends to pay expenses, the effect would be the same, but the risk of you overriding shareholder votes with a 50% +1 vote would be removed.

Ian is ripping me off. Here's the scam accusation thread. Please weigh in there:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ian-bakewell-133362

I did not know that Ian was also under fire for other stuff like misrepresenting shareholder votes. But, if he owns shares he bought legally (there's no way he bought 50% of his company though) then he should have the right to vote. Unless he is using stolen/free/issued/unpaid-for shares to act against the best interests of paying shareholders... In that case please post whatever you have to the scam accusation thread above.

No answer then? I don't care if usagi has it in for you, I care that I'm a shareholder with no voting rights. I've been buying cheap shares because I hoped you'd address this problem and make it right and the share price would stablilize at higher levels. IOW I thought the selling was over done, but this issue must be addressed.

I am very dissatisfied with you Ian And with bakewell!
No answers, no announcements , Crash And burn our Money And value...

Greets Chuck

crash + burn

ian would you please address the controlling interest issue that's been raised? This is clearly a weight dragging down the share price.

yeah, thats the story on the paper!
But what if you buy shares from the open market ?
What if one of your best friends hold shares for you?

Ian make a statemant that you will never again vote with g&m shares!
Give us our promised transparancy!

If more of my claimd points will be complaid, i am open to raise my bakewell holding.

greets Chuck!

I figured it this way:

20% = Personal Stake
30% = Growth and Maintenance

That's where I got 50% from.

Then you subtract the "10% special offer" on shares. And if people were to take full advantage of your offer, at a maximum that would subtract, 10%.

So, at the very, very least you would still control 40%. This is still too much in my opinion.

The 30% Growth and Maintenance is what I see as the problem. Those shares should not vote.

How much is currently being mined? (how many hash per second?) What will the payment per share be this coming monday?

This went over well....

The motion was to either pay out all accrued BTC (during the glbse fiasco) or "bank" it to buy more equipment.



The price dropped because Ian used "growth" (company) shares to vote. In my opinion (and others) growth shares should abstain from voting as technically nobody controls those shares. Because Ian's personal shares and company shares will equal 50% of the vote, it makes any future motion worthless and Ian can vote whatever he wants.
Some shareholders believe this is not how BAKEWELL should be run and have dumped their shares.

Ian, this really needs to be fixed. Growth and Maintenance shares need to abstain from all future motions as those share have no voice.

I am a bit confused by the recently passed motion. Are you no longer paying out any dividends? Why did the price just drop 50%, if the company is holding onto more funds, wouldn't that make the price go up?

Whats up Ian, do you make holidays?
Beginn to work as CEO and lead the Company, you only burn our money and save the earnings for the company by fake motions by voting with company helded shares..
Look at the Chart, the price is now  @0.07, thats the half of the issue price, wake up!...

You just only found cheaters company on this board..

the not amused Chuck

Silly thing about it is that the motion would have passed anyway had he just temporarily transferred the growth shares back to treasury before it closed: but that would have meant acknowledging the growth shares had no vote and losing ability to choose the outcome on future votes which may not otherwise  go the way he wants.  The problem isn't that the motion passed (looks like it would have legitimately passed) - it's that the way it was done shows a total lack of respect for shareholders and makes it plain they have no say in what happens.

There's also another issue - that it seems unclaimed shares HAVE been transferred back to treasury despite that being entirely inappropriate whilst nefario is still sending out updates to lists.  I explained earlier in thread how those should be dealt with - and it was also described in the thread detailing how to migrate to BTC.CO.  You don't just get to take back shares because nefario hasn't yet included their owner in the list he sent out.  He's by no means only asset issuer trying this on - and it just creates a mess down the line when new claims finally show up (aside from being extremely dubious and in bad faith).

I'm disappointed that you've chosen to vote with growth and income shares that should clearly not have had a vote. Unfortunately as investors are now fleeing I can only join the herd and sell at a loss at this point or hold onto shares that have no voice.

Hi there.

As a new investor, may I gently suggest that it appears to me to be time to get a few things in order.

The question of voting rights which Deprived addresses above is very important. I completely agree that giving yourself 50% control over any motions by giving votes to the growth shares seems unreasonable, and detrimental to the voice and wishes of shareholders. I believe this is making Bakewell less attractive as an investment. The share price seems to be dropping as I write this, and I see that as a clear sign of dissatisfaction, not only with the result of the recent vote, but the state of the fund in other areas as well. The growth shares should not have a vote.

The contract is also a mess and unclear, still referencing GLBSE, and obviously not reflecting the actual situation at the moment. I would suggest this should be updated as soon as possible.

And the questions which Charles Bass raised some days ago are very important. I think there should be much clearer information about the current state of equipment, finances, mining revenue, shares and future plans.

I fully realise that there has been a period of chaos and uncertainty due to the GLBSE fiasco, and I'm sure you have been very busy, but now it seems to be time for some real transparency.

I'm very happy to have had the opportunity to invest in Bakewell on BTC-TC as I have been following your progress since the start, and I have been very impressed so far. I would really like to see Bakewell succeeding and profiting at this exciting new phase with ASICs just around the corner.

Good luck!

On what basis do you believ votes allocated purely to retain 30% for growth should vote?

By doing this you're basically saying that you get to vote with 50% of all shares every time (20% go to you, 30% to growth) so you only have to buy 1 share and you can pass any motion at any time.  So any time you choose you can withhold dividends, vote to close and pay back nothing etc.  It basically makes investment in the company worthless - as you get half the votes without having to part with a cent, so can change anything and do anything you want.

If the company were to close down, would growth shares get a portion of the proceeds from liquidation?  If yes - then where would those funds go?  If no, then pretty obviously they don't hold equity and can't vote (they're just a clumsy method to hold back 30% for growth).

Seems strange you'd devalue your company like this just to hang onto a few BTC - but issuers doing everything they can not to return funds to investors isn't exactly new.  FWIW if I'd held shares I'd probably have voted YES - retain the cash for growth - but fixing a vote to do it isn't the way to get a change.  Passing a motion is MEANT to be hard - as contracts should be rarely changed - it's not meant to be something operator just does on a whim without overwhelming support from investors.

So are the 700 Shares saled or for sale?

If we want that more people buy these shares we have to pay dividend!
I bought shares 3 months ago and got only risk and no benefits!
Why should people buy shares without any payout?


If ASICS boards come out Next Year and we get one, and the people bugying Bakewell shares, where is my profit from taking the risk?
Where is my Benefit for buing the first RIGs that Bakewell could start and mining money to buy asics?




just my 2 cents

Chuck

Removed my post - as I'd misinterpreted what you meant by 2500 sold (because of your system sold doesn't mean same as outstanding as it usually does).  Yeah - assigning them after a block is sold works to advantage of investors (means their dividends don't drop so heavily while a batch is half sold).

I agree with doing things this way as it does making furute accounting and motion voting much easier (and transparent).

But, I would request a motion so that the contract can be changed to reflect this.