Fail.
Whatever do you mean?
Topic: Scammer tag for PsychoticBoy (Read 9268 times)
Definitely, but I think conflict of interest is only part of the problem. Many companies and contracts are vague and open to interpretation. The problem is that there is no way of arbitrage when a dispute arises.
Sure there are ways (formal and informal) to have disputes arbitrated, it's just that 1) the amounts involved are utterly trivial so it's not worth the time and expense and 2) many Bitcoiners value their financial privacy more highly than they value whatever amount is at stake.
Fail.
Hey investment retards, thanks for making it possible for yet another scam to occur. Now go invest more to suck a dick again.
Well I guess that's another way to put it.
But he is the major shareholder, he dosn't have to care what others want. He got the money, now bye bye.
And this is the problem with the cargo cult mentality which permeates the Bitcoin eco-system. There are no constraints on operators voting on issues where they have a clear conflict of interest so they repeatedly take actions which disadvantage other share-holders and justify it on the basis of owning the majority of shares.
Definitely, but I think conflict of interest is only part of the problem. Many companies and contracts are vague and open to interpretation. The problem is that there is no way of arbitrage when a dispute arises. Without repercussions it's about who can generate the biggest smokescreen and about who knows who. The investors generally loose, because the operators hold the levers and have their money.
But he is the major shareholder, he dosn't have to care what others want. He got the money, now bye bye.
And this is the problem with the cargo cult mentality which permeates the Bitcoin eco-system. There are no constraints on operators voting on issues where they have a clear conflict of interest so they repeatedly take actions which disadvantage other share-holders and justify it on the basis of owning the majority of shares.
But he is the major shareholder, he dosn't have to care what others want. He got the money, now bye bye.
That the MAJORITY of investors who wanted to continue didn't agree on an exchange isn't the same as counting a bunch of them as voting to close.
Strike one.
And that's aside from fact that votes was tallied based on number of people voting - not number of shares.
Strike two. Especially considering plenty of people probably voted with 0 shares.
And having failed at basic commonsense and math he then immediately closed and sent back funds without waiting to see if anyone noticed the rather interesting voting process used.
Strike three.
This is not just an instance of scummy sometime in the distant past. This is scummy in continued form.
And shockingly none of the investors appear to even have noticed that there wasn't a majority in favour of closure.
People of GLBSE.
On top they voted to liquidate early. The risk and decision to liquidate were taken voluntarily, now deal with your loss.
Well this is the really amusing thing about it.
Shareholders did NOT vote to liquidate lol.
From the thread:
"
Question: At which Exchange should PGM continue?
Cryptostocks 3 (11.1%)
BTCT.co 4 (14.8%)
MPex 0 (0%)
Bitfunder 9 (33.3%)
Don't continue, Buyback my shares! 11 (40.7%)
Votes Total: 27"
59.93% of votes were NOT to close. He closed it with only 40.7% voting to do so.
That's because he did the inexcusable fuckup of asking two questions in one vote -
1. Should PGM continue?
2. If PGM continues, at which exchange should it do so?
That the MAJORITY of investors who wanted to continue didn't agree on an exchange isn't the same as counting a bunch of them as voting to close.
And that's aside from fact that votes was tallied based on number of people voting - not number of shares.
And having failed at basic commonsense and math he then immediately closed and sent back funds without waiting to see if anyone noticed the rather interesting voting process used. And shockingly none of the investors appear to even have noticed that there wasn't a majority in favour of closure.
Shareholders are not innocent. Look at it this way: At the time these contracts were launched it was common knowledge that mining, even with FPGA, was not going to be profitable for much longer. Note that is, if you mined yourself with a FPGA. So how did you expect to break even after paying someone a management fee?
ASIC upgrade + possible expansion using money gathered in IPO. Issuer's intention to screw his shareholders was never clear.That's vague, isn't it? How much expansion? How much money? When? I wouldn't invest on those vague promises.
Investors trusted the operator and that trust was maybe broken. It is a matter of opinion, because the investors choose to liquidate before any ASIC upgrade or "possible expansion". So maybe it is scummy, but there is not enough to call it a scam.
Shareholders are not innocent. Look at it this way: At the time these contracts were launched it was common knowledge that mining, even with FPGA, was not going to be profitable for much longer. Note that is, if you mined yourself with a FPGA. So how did you expect to break even after paying someone a management fee?
ASIC upgrade + possible expansion using money gathered in IPO. Issuer's intention to screw his shareholders was never clear.Shareholders are not innocent. Look at it this way: At the time these contracts were launched it was common knowledge that mining, even with FPGA, was not going to be profitable for much longer. Note that is, if you mined yourself with a FPGA. So how did you expect to break even after paying someone a management fee?
ASIC upgrade + possible expansion using money gathered in IPO. Issuer's intention to screw his shareholders was never clear.
Shareholders are not innocent. Look at it this way: At the time these contracts were launched it was common knowledge that mining, even with FPGA, was not going to be profitable for much longer. Note that is, if you mined yourself with a FPGA. So how did you expect to break even after paying someone a management fee?
Mining contracts have always been a bad deal for investors. But they could have figured that out by informing themselves and doing the math, like many of us did. In this case the only way investors could have made a tiny profit was if the ASIC would have been delivered. But it wasn't. On top they voted to liquidate early. The risk and decision to liquidate were taken voluntarily, now deal with your loss.
Mining contracts have always been a bad deal for investors. But they could have figured that out by informing themselves and doing the math, like many of us did. In this case the only way investors could have made a tiny profit was if the ASIC would have been delivered. But it wasn't. On top they voted to liquidate early. The risk and decision to liquidate were taken voluntarily, now deal with your loss.
give him what he deserves
I remember this offering and I thought it was pretty clear that he was raising $2,500 for a $1,399 item. After that analysis, I decided it was not worth investing in. I figured other people bought in because
a) they didn't have a whole $1,399 and would prefer to have a piece of the ASIC future
b) didn't have mining expertise and had no desire to learn
c) didn't want to manage their own equipment for various (usually spousal) reasons
d) desired liquidity
Make no mistake about this: if BFL had delivered on time, then that 1/1000th of an ASIC would have been worth a lot more than $2.50. While it wasn't an early order, it was still relatively early in the preorder line. This alone would make the worth of the device much higher than $1,399, and it could have been as much as worth $10,000. The dividends from the device would quickly eclipse your investment. It would have been a good call. Not as good as buying your own device, but still quite profitable.
Now, if BFL delivers next month, then it still might have been a good call. You wouldn't be rolling in coins, but the initial dividends might be good depending on what happens with the other vendors. However, you guys won't know because you voted to liquidate. I think the problem here is that the majority of the shareholders, the ones who fit the criteria above, don't really understand mining and so they didn't really get that liquidation meant a lot less money.
It's kind of like if a bunch of Amish people did a corporate takeover of Google, then voted to wipe all the hard drives and liquidate the equipment. Then they would be stuck there going "why are we getting so much less than we paid for. This is a scam."
But it's not a scam, they just acted on a business they don't know anything about. And that's what the shareholders here did. PsychoticBoy didn't do this to you, you did it to yourself.
tl;dr - Scammer tag?
a) they didn't have a whole $1,399 and would prefer to have a piece of the ASIC future
b) didn't have mining expertise and had no desire to learn
c) didn't want to manage their own equipment for various (usually spousal) reasons
d) desired liquidity
Make no mistake about this: if BFL had delivered on time, then that 1/1000th of an ASIC would have been worth a lot more than $2.50. While it wasn't an early order, it was still relatively early in the preorder line. This alone would make the worth of the device much higher than $1,399, and it could have been as much as worth $10,000. The dividends from the device would quickly eclipse your investment. It would have been a good call. Not as good as buying your own device, but still quite profitable.
Now, if BFL delivers next month, then it still might have been a good call. You wouldn't be rolling in coins, but the initial dividends might be good depending on what happens with the other vendors. However, you guys won't know because you voted to liquidate. I think the problem here is that the majority of the shareholders, the ones who fit the criteria above, don't really understand mining and so they didn't really get that liquidation meant a lot less money.
It's kind of like if a bunch of Amish people did a corporate takeover of Google, then voted to wipe all the hard drives and liquidate the equipment. Then they would be stuck there going "why are we getting so much less than we paid for. This is a scam."
But it's not a scam, they just acted on a business they don't know anything about. And that's what the shareholders here did. PsychoticBoy didn't do this to you, you did it to yourself.
tl;dr - Scammer tag?
Interesting points you bring to the table.
I remember this offering and I thought it was pretty clear that he was raising $2,500 for a $1,399 item. After that analysis, I decided it was not worth investing in. I figured other people bought in because
a) they didn't have a whole $1,399 and would prefer to have a piece of the ASIC future
b) didn't have mining expertise and had no desire to learn
c) didn't want to manage their own equipment for various (usually spousal) reasons
d) desired liquidity
Make no mistake about this: if BFL had delivered on time, then that 1/1000th of an ASIC would have been worth a lot more than $2.50. While it wasn't an early order, it was still relatively early in the preorder line. This alone would make the worth of the device much higher than $1,399, and it could have been as much as worth $10,000. The dividends from the device would quickly eclipse your investment. It would have been a good call. Not as good as buying your own device, but still quite profitable.
Now, if BFL delivers next month, then it still might have been a good call. You wouldn't be rolling in coins, but the initial dividends might be good depending on what happens with the other vendors. However, you guys won't know because you voted to liquidate. I think the problem here is that the majority of the shareholders, the ones who fit the criteria above, don't really understand mining and so they didn't really get that liquidation meant a lot less money.
It's kind of like if a bunch of Amish people did a corporate takeover of Google, then voted to wipe all the hard drives and liquidate the equipment. Then they would be stuck there going "why are we getting so much less than we paid for. This is a scam."
But it's not a scam, they just acted on a business they don't know anything about. And that's what the shareholders here did. PsychoticBoy didn't do this to you, you did it to yourself.
tl;dr - Scammer tag?
a) they didn't have a whole $1,399 and would prefer to have a piece of the ASIC future
b) didn't have mining expertise and had no desire to learn
c) didn't want to manage their own equipment for various (usually spousal) reasons
d) desired liquidity
Make no mistake about this: if BFL had delivered on time, then that 1/1000th of an ASIC would have been worth a lot more than $2.50. While it wasn't an early order, it was still relatively early in the preorder line. This alone would make the worth of the device much higher than $1,399, and it could have been as much as worth $10,000. The dividends from the device would quickly eclipse your investment. It would have been a good call. Not as good as buying your own device, but still quite profitable.
Now, if BFL delivers next month, then it still might have been a good call. You wouldn't be rolling in coins, but the initial dividends might be good depending on what happens with the other vendors. However, you guys won't know because you voted to liquidate. I think the problem here is that the majority of the shareholders, the ones who fit the criteria above, don't really understand mining and so they didn't really get that liquidation meant a lot less money.
It's kind of like if a bunch of Amish people did a corporate takeover of Google, then voted to wipe all the hard drives and liquidate the equipment. Then they would be stuck there going "why are we getting so much less than we paid for. This is a scam."
But it's not a scam, they just acted on a business they don't know anything about. And that's what the shareholders here did. PsychoticBoy didn't do this to you, you did it to yourself.
tl;dr - Scammer tag?
Send everyone that was included in the shareholders list the 0.005 btc a share that I paid short + 0.011 btc per shareholder (to make up for my math)
This is the tx 6dc5140990326bb7e0ebcc9d27e9e6b4118b7a98237f4ff60b5b87f60be1bf7b
This is the tx 6dc5140990326bb7e0ebcc9d27e9e6b4118b7a98237f4ff60b5b87f60be1bf7b
I will explain it one more time:
When you bought shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single(SC) (0.82 Mh/s)
You have only recieved dividend equal to 0.82 Mh/s so now I had to buy the shares back, so you only have the right to recieve 1/1000th of the BFL Single's market value per share.
This is all there is to it, I am done here.
When you bought shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single(SC) (0.82 Mh/s)
You have only recieved dividend equal to 0.82 Mh/s so now I had to buy the shares back, so you only have the right to recieve 1/1000th of the BFL Single's market value per share.
This is all there is to it, I am done here.
Actually that's not quite accurate is it?
Didn't they buy 1/1000th BFL Single AND 1/1000th of the upgrade of that to an ASIC?
So what they were entitled to was 0.07 BTC for the cancelled upgrade (that amount is explicitly defined in contract) + 1/1000th of value of the BFL Single. Which I guess is what you actually paid out - just your post seems to state otherwise.
BFL Single (+upgrade) or SC is worth 1300$.
So your telling me they are entiteled to 600$ for the BFL Single (600/ 13.5= 44.44444444 BTC/1000= 0.044 BTC) +0.07 BTC is 0.114 BTC
In that case they are entiteled to 0.005 btc a share more than I paid.
I can set that straight.
I will explain it one more time:
When you bought shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single(SC) (0.82 Mh/s)
You have only recieved dividend equal to 0.82 Mh/s so now I had to buy the shares back, so you only have the right to recieve 1/1000th of the BFL Single's market value per share.
This is all there is to it, I am done here.
When you bought shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single(SC) (0.82 Mh/s)
You have only recieved dividend equal to 0.82 Mh/s so now I had to buy the shares back, so you only have the right to recieve 1/1000th of the BFL Single's market value per share.
This is all there is to it, I am done here.
Actually that's not quite accurate is it?
Didn't they buy 1/1000th BFL Single AND 1/1000th of the upgrade of that to an ASIC?
So what they were entitled to was 0.07 BTC for the cancelled upgrade (that amount is explicitly defined in contract) + 1/1000th of value of the BFL Single. Which I guess is what you actually paid out - just your post seems to state otherwise.
Jump to: