Fail.
Whatever do you mean?
Topic: Scammer tag for PsychoticBoy (Read 9305 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.
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.
You are weaseling. With ABM, you never said it was limited to just 0.82MH/s. Where did you say that? You said words like "currently" and used a plural in your original IPO. In fact, where in the *entire* ABM thread did you ever say it was limited to just 0.82MH/s?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78638.0;all
All you're confirming is that this was fraud from the outset, even if we accept Deprived's claim that you were honest about it from the start. Which I don't. You and all the other people who overcharged so much that it couldn't possibly have ever made any investor any money, ever, you are all fraudsters betting against your customers.
I am not talking about ABM!
ABM is relisted on BitFunder, I never bought any ABM shares back!
This is about PGM https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/glbse-paladon-green-mining-pgm-including-asic-upgrade-no-bond-97263 , READ!!!
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.
You are weaseling. With ABM, you never said it was limited to just 0.82MH/s. Where did you say that? You said words like "currently" and used a plural in your original IPO. In fact, where in the *entire* ABM thread did you ever say it was limited to just 0.82MH/s?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78638.0;all
All you're confirming is that this was fraud from the outset, even if we accept Deprived's claim that you were honest about it from the start. Which I don't. You and all the other people who overcharged so much that it couldn't possibly have ever made any investor any money, ever, you are all fraudsters betting against your customers.
I'm NOT claiming he as honest about it from the start - was accepting that the contract he posted was the relevant one. Think it's a bit confusing at times which of the two bad investments we're talking about: the one closing down or the one staying open. Certainly one of them had an entirely unclear OP - whether that was the contract on GLBSE or not I have no idea.
I'd certainly agree that paying three times the cost of a BFL single for the rights to the mining output from one isn't exactly going to win any best-value awards. And wording the contract such that's not clear just how gigantic a management fee is being taken is certainly scummy. But is it a scam? My best guess is that admins are going to say that so long as you get what you paid for it's not scam - and if you weren't sure what you were going to get you should find out before parting with your cash.
I see it as more of an idiot tax than a scam. I wouldn't run something so horribly bad value myself - and I certainly wouldn't want to ever be associated with or have to deal with the individuals perpetuating it. But that doesn't make them scammers - the deception involved was self-deception from investors, who decided to believe (along with loads of others) that mining is somehow an amazingly profitable endeavour that can be profitable for investors even after asset issuers take a massive chunk of gross revenue (taking the cut up front is similar impact to taking from gross revenue).
It'd be nice to see a legitimate mining company - where the manager only gets a share of profits as their fee (profits being AFTER costs AND depreciation of equipment value). But don't hold your breath for that.
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.
You are mixing 2 companies ABM (the thread you qouted this all from) and PGM (read OP for link) the company I took over from paladon.
PS:
To all shit stirrers:
Please make sure you know what you talk about before posting.
PS:
To all shit stirrers:
Please make sure you know what you talk about before posting.
I notice you aren't disputing any facts. Go on, dispute some facts. If I'm wrong, unlike most of the other chuckleheads on this forum, I'll retract my posts and post an apology. Am I wrong?
Your business plan(s) are essentially identical to all the other hashrate-based rather than enterprise-based mining scams out there: you are betting on difficulty continuing to go up, which is exactly what it's going to do. The upgrade to ASIC being in some other venture (which you are still running) is a stupid red herring: the money raised from these "stocks" is something you will only ever have to fractionally pay back, because you've never stated that the profits will be used to keep the mining return current with difficulty.
In other words, the "profit" isn't actually a profit, and due to rising difficulty will slowly be eroded away until the 60MH/s is just as worthless as the 0.8MH/s was. You're getting the public to pay for your miners, in advance, and have thus realised an ROI on your IPO at the expense of a tiny amount of effort going forward.
ABM, or PGM, it doesn't matter. The only difference is time-to-realised-scam, and the fact that the OP mis-labelled this scam thread.
The "price" includes the price of an ASIC upgrade!? So in other words, the users were still charged about double of even the full-price of the ASIC. Now why did you do that, anyway? Why would you so severely overcharge?
Call me a shit-disturber again. Go on.
AS I said right at the start of the thread - you (investors) made your loss the moment you decided to invest and pay a massive mark-up on the hardware as a management fee.
The closing-down payment is NOT a scam. The ownership of the remaining shares is irrelevant - as 1 share is worth 1/1000 of the BFL single + upgrade irrespective of who owns the rest.
If it was a scam anywhere it would have to be at the launch by charging such a steep markup and basically gauranteeing no initial ivnestor could ever make a profit. But that isn't really a good basis for a scam accusation as there was no deception. Sure it was a shockingly bad, horribly over-priced investment. But a scam? No. If it were then majority of mining companies/bonds should have their own threads in here - as very few will/have ever made a profit for investors.
All the shutdown has done is finally made it obvious to all investors just how they wasted their BTC investing in it. Had it kept going you'd still probably lose the same amount (might be more, might be less - my guess is probably more if anything) - just spread out over a longer period.
This is the only contract that is valid for PGM, the ABM thread got nothing to do with PGM!
Copied the OP from the PGM thread (contract)
----------
[PGM] Paladon Green Mining https://glbse.com/asset/view/PGM
Hardware
1 Butterfly Labs Single @ 0.82Gh/s (be upgraded to BFL Single ‘SC’ @ 40Gh/s)
Share
1000 shares will be issued @ 0.25 BTC each. This price is including the ASIC upgrade. If upgrade will not be possible and I get refund of BFL, I will repay 0.07 BTC per share to stockholders.
Each share = 0.82Mh/s right now. After upgrade each share = 40Mh/s upgrade has been ordered! (or 60Mh/s according latest BFL info)
All of the Generated BTC will be payed as dividend every week -/- expenses
Revenue
All mining revenue will be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends (after expenses). Dividends will be paid weekly. Profits are the net income remaining after expenses including operating costs (electricity, repair work, maintenance, small hardware), investments in existing or new service development, and any other action capital investment that the organization deems necessary to take part in.
Electricity is de largest part of the operating costs. Electricity price is € 0,22 p/Kwh (I know this looks expensive for a lot of people but a very normal price in The Netherlands). Electricity is green electricity so guaranteed no pollution. (I am thinking of building my own solar panels in the near future).
Currently the expenses% = ~25%. So ~75% of the generated BTC will be paid as dividend weekly.
Miscellaneous
Mining will occur at a mining pool of the company`s choice or solo mining if profitable. The operator of the company reserves the right regardless of the number of shares held to raise a motion and to liquidate the company's assets and cease operations. The operator also reserves the right to issue more shares to expand operation. Any motions raised by shareholders will be considered advisory and non binding. Shares do represent an ownership share in the mining hardware in the event of liquidation. In case of liquidation the mining hardware will be sold and minus expences be paid to the shareholders. The issuer can change the % of the expenses if needed to cover the expenses of the company. If the expenses of the company exceeds the income of the generated BTC, the company has to right to temporary shut down the operation. The issuer can buy back the share at any time at a price equal to 1.05 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the prior 15 days. The operator of the company has the right to retain shares in the company.
About Me
I am living in The Netherlands and 36 years old and I will be doing my utmost best for you to keep this company up and running. Off course I wil identify bij GLBSE. More questions? Just ask!
Best regards,
Paladon
----------
Hope this will help you.
Copied the OP from the PGM thread (contract)
----------
[PGM] Paladon Green Mining https://glbse.com/asset/view/PGM
Hardware
1 Butterfly Labs Single @ 0.82Gh/s (be upgraded to BFL Single ‘SC’ @ 40Gh/s)
Share
1000 shares will be issued @ 0.25 BTC each. This price is including the ASIC upgrade. If upgrade will not be possible and I get refund of BFL, I will repay 0.07 BTC per share to stockholders.
Each share = 0.82Mh/s right now. After upgrade each share = 40Mh/s upgrade has been ordered! (or 60Mh/s according latest BFL info)
All of the Generated BTC will be payed as dividend every week -/- expenses
Revenue
All mining revenue will be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends (after expenses). Dividends will be paid weekly. Profits are the net income remaining after expenses including operating costs (electricity, repair work, maintenance, small hardware), investments in existing or new service development, and any other action capital investment that the organization deems necessary to take part in.
Electricity is de largest part of the operating costs. Electricity price is € 0,22 p/Kwh (I know this looks expensive for a lot of people but a very normal price in The Netherlands). Electricity is green electricity so guaranteed no pollution. (I am thinking of building my own solar panels in the near future).
Currently the expenses% = ~25%. So ~75% of the generated BTC will be paid as dividend weekly.
Miscellaneous
Mining will occur at a mining pool of the company`s choice or solo mining if profitable. The operator of the company reserves the right regardless of the number of shares held to raise a motion and to liquidate the company's assets and cease operations. The operator also reserves the right to issue more shares to expand operation. Any motions raised by shareholders will be considered advisory and non binding. Shares do represent an ownership share in the mining hardware in the event of liquidation. In case of liquidation the mining hardware will be sold and minus expences be paid to the shareholders. The issuer can change the % of the expenses if needed to cover the expenses of the company. If the expenses of the company exceeds the income of the generated BTC, the company has to right to temporary shut down the operation. The issuer can buy back the share at any time at a price equal to 1.05 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the prior 15 days. The operator of the company has the right to retain shares in the company.
About Me
I am living in The Netherlands and 36 years old and I will be doing my utmost best for you to keep this company up and running. Off course I wil identify bij GLBSE. More questions? Just ask!
Best regards,
Paladon
----------
Hope this will help you.
Actually the same applies to PGM.
This is a stupid thread, and PsychoticBoy is almost certainly not a thief or a scammer.
This forum really took a turn for the worse when people began to realize how badly the mods dropped the ball re trolls/etc.
This and the recent other pointless, banal scam accusation threads are the pudding.
This forum really took a turn for the worse when people began to realize how badly the mods dropped the ball re trolls/etc.
This and the recent other pointless, banal scam accusation threads are the pudding.
wtf are you talking about? You obtained money from PB as part of an insurance contract, didn't you? Why are you even commenting in here, Captain Conflict-Of-Interest?
Deprived is correct. The buyback is not the full scam. The buyback is the realisation (in the bringing-into-concrete-reality sense) of the scam. The money raised was misappropriated and the shares instantly devalued in the actual IPO itself.
So, the initial IPO was the scam. Note in the original *thread* (I'd love to see the original GLBSE contract) he "sold" just one BFL FPGA device which a buyback clause which allowed him to buy it back at market value and instantly make about $1200. If he'd wanted to. If he weren't the one who completed the IPO, etc. That would not have been a problem.. if he'd been up-front about it from the start. He wasn't!
Note that he uses the misleading parentheses-surrounded plural "(`s)" on the mining hardware in the IPO announcement, and doesn't do any clarification for another day, and even then, states ambiguously "I will only issue more shares if I have the hardware to back it up." He doesn't actually say anything to clarify that none of the money raised is going to purchase new hardware. He never says that in the thread. Even the CPA insurance only insures the one FPGA Single--but doesn't say anything about the murky question of additional hardware.
Check out msg#20! "We will still be backed up by our GPU`s and FPGA`s. It`s an extra insurrance." Who's "we"? Well, just him of course. And where did the insurance money actually come from? So the other scam's beneficiary is the one who issued the "insurance" policy!
And yes, PsychoticBoy, everyone knew difficulty was going up. Including you. It's an exponential curve. All you mining hashrate-based companies were betting against your customers that difficulty would save you from ever having to fully pay back any of their investment, and not even promising them correct odds. It was a sure thing for you. The risk was so minimal on your part, you could just pocket the money and buy hookers with it.
Even if difficulty had stayed the same, your tiny payouts meant that it would have been.. what? Multiple years before the original value of the people investing in the IPO would be realised and profit gained?
This is strong evidence, and his later insistence that the first FPGA Single was the only thing anyone ever bought an interest in, that he was running a scam from the start.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Deprived is wrong. I don't see PsychoticBoy responding to Deprived anywhere. Do you? Why doesn't he answer that? He's relying on the fact that Jurek can't make a coherent case, and hoping this will simply go away.
That is why he deserves the scammer tag; not because of the close-down. Jurek here just happens to be realising that he was playing a losing game from the start and isn't too happy about it. And rightly so!
You are mixing 2 companies ABM (the thread you qouted this all from) and PGM (read OP for link) the company I took over from paladon.
PS:
To all shit stirrers:
Please make sure you know what you talk about before posting.
PSYCHOTICBOY IS A THIEF AND A SCAMMER BE WARNED!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scammer-tag-for-psychoticboy-129941
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scammer-tag-for-psychoticboy-129941
This is a stupid thread, and PsychoticBoy is almost certainly not a thief or a scammer.
This forum really took a turn for the worse when people began to realize how badly the mods dropped the ball re trolls/etc.
This and the recent other pointless, banal scam accusation threads are the pudding.
For the kiddies among us, I`ll explain it in childlanguage.
I bought a box of Lego duplo which contains 1000 pieces, I sell 300 pieces this means the 700 remaining pieces are still mine.
So if for some reason I have to buy those back, then I only have to buy 300 back because the other 700 are still owned by me.
This is exactly the same with The BFL Single that is divided in 1000 shares (pieces).
I bought a box of Lego duplo which contains 1000 pieces, I sell 300 pieces this means the 700 remaining pieces are still mine.
So if for some reason I have to buy those back, then I only have to buy 300 back because the other 700 are still owned by me.
This is exactly the same with The BFL Single that is divided in 1000 shares (pieces).
- Investors overpaid for a BFL single at IPO
- Investors bought shares of an asset valued in USD (BFL Single) and BTC/USD went up
No scam occurred here, unless there is some proof of wrongdoing with regards to the OP's purchases of his own shares.
From the contract:
Quote
The issuer can buy back the share at any time at a price equal to 1.05 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the prior 15 days
You guys are lucky it wasn't bought back for zero, following the strict wording of the contract which had no provision for a GLBSE shutdown. I think the OP's buyback price is quite reasonable.If GLBSE had still been open but there was no trade in these shares for 15 days... would the issuer then be in the right if he invoked the buy back clause for 0.00
Same goes for all the other issuers that have such a buy back clause....
Disclaimer: I have/had no shares in this venture
- Investors overpaid for a BFL single at IPO
- Investors bought shares of an asset valued in USD (BFL Single) and BTC/USD went up
No scam occurred here, unless there is some proof of wrongdoing with regards to the OP's purchases of his own shares.
From the contract:
Quote
The issuer can buy back the share at any time at a price equal to 1.05 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the prior 15 days
You guys are lucky it wasn't bought back for zero, following the strict wording of the contract which had no provision for a GLBSE shutdown. I think the OP's buyback price is quite reasonable. 
What do you mean?
It wouldn't give you more per share does it?
What do you mean?
What does it matter if he or paladons owns those shares?
Since I know I did nothing wrong and broke no contract, I will ask it myself:
@ theymos: could you end this "shit stirring"? Do I deserve a Scammer Tag?
@ theymos: could you end this "shit stirring"? Do I deserve a Scammer Tag?
I just want you to remember how pathetic you are when you buy your christmas tree with the money you stole.
Besides that I also want somebody who is in charge here (Theymos?) to decide wether word "shareholders" may or may not include the issuer if it is as laconic as in this case (original contract https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/glbse-paladon-green-mining-pgm-including-asic-upgrade-no-bond-97263). I don't think Paladon had in mind what the jackass here is pulling. I think he is using the situation, abusing the contract.
Besides that I also want somebody who is in charge here (Theymos?) to decide wether word "shareholders" may or may not include the issuer if it is as laconic as in this case (original contract https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/glbse-paladon-green-mining-pgm-including-asic-upgrade-no-bond-97263). I don't think Paladon had in mind what the jackass here is pulling. I think he is using the situation, abusing the contract.
From the start the BFL Single (PGM was only 1 BFL Single) was divided in 1000 parts (shares)
Issuer owns all shares till they are sold (since he owns the single from start), when you bought the shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single per share.
So whats your whole point?
Issuer owns all shares till they are sold (since he owns the single from start), when you bought the shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single per share.
So whats your whole point?
Let me get this straight. At first you said "56 shares are owned by me ", but when it became obvious that you kept half of the investment to yourself while you should have given it back to the shareholders you picked exactly that moment to surprise us saying that actually YOU are the major shareholder, DESPITE the glbse was at the time DOWN, and despite data pulled from glbse showing that in fact these 573 shares were never sold!
What I don't understand is why this pathetic thief hasn't yet received the scammer tag? Looks like he is not going to admit his "calculus error".
It is just sad how desperatly you are trying to defened yourself, avoiding questions in this thread, rushing into dead ends ("the highest price in 15 days is 0 so you are lucky" shit).. Be a man and just admit you made a mistake, pay back what is NOT yours!
What I don't understand is why this pathetic thief hasn't yet received the scammer tag? Looks like he is not going to admit his "calculus error".
It is just sad how desperatly you are trying to defened yourself, avoiding questions in this thread, rushing into dead ends ("the highest price in 15 days is 0 so you are lucky" shit).. Be a man and just admit you made a mistake, pay back what is NOT yours!
It is taking quite some time to fabricate so called proof I see.
I am not "fabricating" so callad proof, I can make the YML file (shareholders list) provided by GLBSE public but then I would expose everyone`s email address and I think you don`t want your email-box spammed or worse.
It is taking quite some time to fabricate so called proof I see.
Proof is in YML file provided by GLBSE (shareholders list).
I can make it public, but then I would expose everyone`s email addresses.
I can make it public, but then I would expose everyone`s email addresses.
You bought this shares in the GLBSE platform?
If so, you can produce a redacted list.
You make it confusing,
the 573 shares were the share I bought when I tookover PGM, the 56 shares are shares that I held in another account in GLBSE (private).
I bought back 139 shares in that tx, 6 shares in another tx for FDBF, that leaves 226 shares.
the 573 shares were the share I bought when I tookover PGM, the 56 shares are shares that I held in another account in GLBSE (private).
I bought back 139 shares in that tx, 6 shares in another tx for FDBF, that leaves 226 shares.
I am sorry, the lack of better details were really confusing.
All right. You just have to prove that you bought the 573 shares when you took over the PGM.
Proof is in YML file provided by GLBSE (shareholders list).
I can make it public, but then I would expose everyone`s email addresses.
You make it confusing,
the 573 shares were the share I bought when I tookover PGM, the 56 shares are shares that I held in another account in GLBSE (private).
I bought back 139 shares in that tx, 6 shares in another tx for FDBF, that leaves 226 shares.
the 573 shares were the share I bought when I tookover PGM, the 56 shares are shares that I held in another account in GLBSE (private).
I bought back 139 shares in that tx, 6 shares in another tx for FDBF, that leaves 226 shares.
I am sorry, the lack of better details were really confusing.
All right. You just have to prove that you bought the 573 shares when you took over the PGM.
Sure, I bought out 139 shares @ 0.11 btc, if your address is in that tx then your shares have been bought back.
The outstanding 226 shares have not been claimed or they have recieved a double payment.
The outstanding 226 shares have not been claimed or they have recieved a double payment.
This is still confusing...
You said that '573 shares were owned by PGM'. Among this shares, '56 shares are owned by' you. This leave 517 shares which are not owned by you. Then you 'bought back 145'. This leave 372 shares which are not owned by you.
You claimed that '226 shares have not been claimed' among the '371 outstanding shares'. This leave 145 shares which have been claimed.
What are this '139 shares @ 0.11' BTC you bought?
You make it confusing,
the 573 shares were the share I bought when I tookover PGM, the 56 shares are shares that I held in another account in GLBSE (private).
I bought back 139 shares in that tx, 6 shares in another tx for FDBF, that leaves 226 shares.
How exactly did you buy the shares since glbse wasnt operating ?
Sure, I bought out 139 shares @ 0.11 btc, if your address is in that tx then your shares have been bought back.
The outstanding 226 shares have not been claimed or they have recieved a double payment.
The outstanding 226 shares have not been claimed or they have recieved a double payment.
This is still confusing...
You said that '573 shares were owned by PGM'. Among this shares, '56 shares are owned by' you. This leave 517 shares which are not owned by you. Then you 'bought back 145'. This leave 372 shares which are not owned by you.
You claimed that '226 shares have not been claimed' among the '371 outstanding shares'. This leave 145 shares which have been claimed.
What are this '139 shares @ 0.11' BTC you bought?
You make it confusing,
the 573 shares were the share I bought when I tookover PGM, the 56 shares are shares that I held in another account in GLBSE (private).
I bought back 139 shares in that tx, 6 shares in another tx for FDBF, that leaves 226 shares.
Sure, I bought out 139 shares @ 0.11 btc, if your address is in that tx then your shares have been bought back.
The outstanding 226 shares have not been claimed or they have recieved a double payment.
The outstanding 226 shares have not been claimed or they have recieved a double payment.
This is still confusing...
You said that '573 shares were owned by PGM'. Among this shares, '56 shares are owned by' you. This leave 517 shares which are not owned by you. Then you 'bought back 145'. This leave 372 shares which are not owned by you.
You claimed that '226 shares have not been claimed' among the '371 outstanding shares'. This leave 145 shares which have been claimed.
What are this '139 shares @ 0.11' BTC you bought?
Last trade over past 15 days is 0 so a buyback of any kind is reasonable if you look at it that way.
The higher price in the last 15 days is the last price of the shares. The last price of the share was not 0.
http://blockchain.info/nl/tx/b346e548fce0d7bb12e391d96d00cc91f4f14d0303e7bf55b31ed6373a4fe3a5
Bought back all shares that are included in the list from GLBSE.
573 shares were owned by PGM, 56 shares are owned by me (personal), bought back 145 out of 371 outstanding shares.
226 shares have not been claimed.
If you have not already claimed your shares, please claim your account at GLBSE.com
Sicerely,
PsychoticBoy
Bought back all shares that are included in the list from GLBSE.
573 shares were owned by PGM, 56 shares are owned by me (personal), bought back 145 out of 371 outstanding shares.
226 shares have not been claimed.
If you have not already claimed your shares, please claim your account at GLBSE.com
Sicerely,
PsychoticBoy
Could you explain exactly what you bought with 15.3000032 BTC?
Sure, I bought out 139 shares @ 0.11 btc, if your address is in that tx then your shares have been bought back.
The outstanding 226 shares have not been claimed or they have recieved a double payment.
Last trade over past 15 days is 0 so a buyback of any kind is reasonable if you look at it that way.
The higher price in the last 15 days is the last price of the shares. The last price of the share was not 0.
http://blockchain.info/nl/tx/b346e548fce0d7bb12e391d96d00cc91f4f14d0303e7bf55b31ed6373a4fe3a5
Bought back all shares that are included in the list from GLBSE.
573 shares were owned by PGM, 56 shares are owned by me (personal), bought back 145 out of 371 outstanding shares.
226 shares have not been claimed.
If you have not already claimed your shares, please claim your account at GLBSE.com
Sicerely,
PsychoticBoy
Bought back all shares that are included in the list from GLBSE.
573 shares were owned by PGM, 56 shares are owned by me (personal), bought back 145 out of 371 outstanding shares.
226 shares have not been claimed.
If you have not already claimed your shares, please claim your account at GLBSE.com
Sicerely,
PsychoticBoy
Could you explain exactly what you bought with 15.3000032 BTC?
Good job paying $2500 for a bfl single....
Do you want me to paste the same quote from the contract for the third time?
No, I think all is said and done now.
Do you want me to paste the same quote from the contract for the third time?
Only proof I have is the YML file recieved from GLBSE.
So start to provide the proof, because you have a shareholder with a reasonable claim against you.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1071180
That means 1.05 x 0.24 BTC, a total of 0.252 BTC per share.
Please, correct me if I am wrong.
Last trade over past 15 days is 0 so a buyback of any kind is reasonable if you look at it that way.
Only proof I have is the YML file recieved from GLBSE.
So start to provide the proof, because you have a shareholder with a reasonable claim against you.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1071180
That means 1.05 x 0.24 BTC, a total of 0.252 BTC per share.
Please, correct me if I am wrong.
No it is NOT irrelevant.
As stated in the original contract:
Where you screwed up the math? Where you stole half of the money!
As stated in the original contract:
Quote from: Paladon
Shares do represent an ownership share in the mining hardware in the event of liquidation. In case of liquidation the mining hardware will be sold and minus expences be paid to the shareholders.
There is NOTHING about paying proportionally. Where you screwed up the math? Where you stole half of the money!
1 share represented 0.82 Mh/s as stated in contract, 1 share is 1/1000 BFL Single.
The other shares are owned by me, I bought them when I tookover PGM.
The other shares are owned by me, I bought them when I tookover PGM.
So its irrelevant how many shares one individual owns, 1 share is 1/1000th BFL Single.
If you own 70 shares, you own 70/1000th BFL single (SC) with current market value 1300$ / 1000 * 70 = 91$ so where did I screw up the math?
You couldn't possibly get these shares since GLBSE had been offline way before you took over PGM.
1 share represented 0.82 Mh/s as stated in contract, 1 share is 1/1000 BFL Single.
The other shares are owned by me, I bought them when I tookover PGM.
The other shares are owned by me, I bought them when I tookover PGM.
So you became a majority shareholder without any advice to the other shareholders that the outstanding shares had been sold? That's...questionable to say the least.
1 share represented 0.82 Mh/s as stated in contract, 1 share is 1/1000 BFL Single.
The other shares are owned by me, I bought them when I tookover PGM.
The other shares are owned by me, I bought them when I tookover PGM.
You will have to prove that to your shareholders.
Only proof I have is the YML file recieved from GLBSE.
1 share represented 0.82 Mh/s as stated in contract, 1 share is 1/1000 BFL Single.
The other shares are owned by me, I bought them when I tookover PGM.
The other shares are owned by me, I bought them when I tookover PGM.
You will have to prove that to your shareholders.
Then congratulations, you are the fucking master of scam. I hope you choke with my money.
You can't prove you owe these shares as it happend AFTER glbse shutdown. You know it.
You can't prove you owe these shares as it happend AFTER glbse shutdown. You know it.
1 share represented 0.82 Mh/s as stated in contract, 1 share is 1/1000 BFL Single.
The other shares are owned by me, I bought them when I tookover PGM.
The other shares are owned by me, I bought them when I tookover PGM.
Nobody as these were never sold!
Anyway, what he did is he took the cost of the asic and divided it by 1000 like if all shares were sold - and that's not the case. 573 shares were never sold (or as he says belonged to Paladon). As I see it these shares are irrelevant, and he should divide the cost of the "sold" ASIC by 463 NOT 1000. that would mean he has to pay 0.21something per share.
There you go, sold for market price divided over shareholders, you said it your self.
As stated in the contract, so no scam.
As stated in the contract, so no scam.
So... Who owns the remaining 573 shares?
@Theymos the last traded price was 0.24 if I read the csv correctly.
@Deprived the quote you posted is not related to PGM as at that time Paladon was still the operator, not ThiefBoy. He was speaking about his own scam, ABM.
Yeah it looks like I got tricked in the first place.
Anyway, what he did is he took the cost of the asic and divided it by 1000 like if all shares were sold - and that's not the case. 573 shares were never sold (or as he says belonged to Paladon). As I see it these shares are irrelevant, and he should divide the cost of the "sold" ASIC by 463 NOT 1000. that would mean he has to pay 0.21something per share.
When you say shareholders, you mean shareholders, you can't i.e. issue 100 000 new shares and treat yourself as the major shareholder. This is ridiculous.
@Deprived the quote you posted is not related to PGM as at that time Paladon was still the operator, not ThiefBoy. He was speaking about his own scam, ABM.
Yeah it looks like I got tricked in the first place.
Anyway, what he did is he took the cost of the asic and divided it by 1000 like if all shares were sold - and that's not the case. 573 shares were never sold (or as he says belonged to Paladon). As I see it these shares are irrelevant, and he should divide the cost of the "sold" ASIC by 463 NOT 1000. that would mean he has to pay 0.21something per share.
Quote from: Paladon
Shares do represent an ownership share in the mining hardware in the event of liquidation. In case of liquidation the mining hardware will be sold and minus expences be paid to the shareholders.
When you say shareholders, you mean shareholders, you can't i.e. issue 100 000 new shares and treat yourself as the major shareholder. This is ridiculous.
There you go, sold for market price divided over shareholders, you said it your self.
As stated in the contract, so no scam.
@Theymos the last traded price was 0.24 if I read the csv correctly.
@Deprived the quote you posted is not related to PGM as at that time Paladon was still the operator, not ThiefBoy. He was speaking about his own scam, ABM.
Yeah it looks like I got tricked in the first place.
Anyway, what he did is he took the cost of the asic and divided it by 1000 like if all shares were sold - and that's not the case. 573 shares were never sold (or as he says belonged to Paladon). As I see it these shares are irrelevant, and he should divide the cost of the "sold" ASIC by 463 NOT 1000. that would mean he has to pay 0.21something per share.
When you say shareholders, you mean shareholders, you can't i.e. issue 100 000 new shares and treat yourself as the major shareholder. This is ridiculous.
@Deprived the quote you posted is not related to PGM as at that time Paladon was still the operator, not ThiefBoy. He was speaking about his own scam, ABM.
Yeah it looks like I got tricked in the first place.
Anyway, what he did is he took the cost of the asic and divided it by 1000 like if all shares were sold - and that's not the case. 573 shares were never sold (or as he says belonged to Paladon). As I see it these shares are irrelevant, and he should divide the cost of the "sold" ASIC by 463 NOT 1000. that would mean he has to pay 0.21something per share.
Quote from: Paladon
Shares do represent an ownership share in the mining hardware in the event of liquidation. In case of liquidation the mining hardware will be sold and minus expences be paid to the shareholders.
When you say shareholders, you mean shareholders, you can't i.e. issue 100 000 new shares and treat yourself as the major shareholder. This is ridiculous.
No body knew mining shares would devalue so quickly.
I paid the full value of the BFL Single (+. Upgrade) back to Investors, is that scamming?
The funds raised were used to buy the ASIC upgrade which is fully refunded.
I asked if Investors would like to continue on another Exchange or a Buyback, they preffered a Buyback so this was the best way to deal with this, Buyback against market value.
Greetz
I paid the full value of the BFL Single (+. Upgrade) back to Investors, is that scamming?
The funds raised were used to buy the ASIC upgrade which is fully refunded.
I asked if Investors would like to continue on another Exchange or a Buyback, they preffered a Buyback so this was the best way to deal with this, Buyback against market value.
Greetz
What was the last traded price per share?
It's actually not relevant here - payment on closedown was defined by operator as outstanding dividends plus funds received from selling hardware. He's valuing the BFL single at full list price.
If there was a scam anywhere it was in not being clear in his OP that he was only selling them rights to 1 BFL single rather than using most/all of raised funds to expand hardware. Basically he was pocketing the lion's share of raised funds (taken as shares rather than cash - but works out same) then paying out based on hardware funded with the bit left. He sold something for way more than it was worth (and didn't provide enough information for that to be obvious to investors).
In fact he's paying out slightly MORE than he would actually have to do so, if he paid out in line with the stated policy.
Personally I wouldn't give a scammer tag for this - he sold overpriced junk to people who didn't work out what they were buying before sending their cash. That's an idiot tax, not a scam.
Cross-posting from other thread.
He's not actually scamming you on the closedown - you got screwed when you bought the shares in the first place. Here's his post that explains how (and just how badly) you got screwed:
He sold 1000 shares at .25 BTC each (250 BTC total = over $2500) and in return shareholders got ONE BFL single. That's where you lost your money - his closing down like this is just making your loss immediately obvious.
Mistake you made was assuming that some of the funds raised were going to buy new hardware - they weren't. If he released a new BFL single to the company that would have been accompanied by raising more funds by sellling new shares. The funds raised were just going into his pocket and in return you got a portion of a BFL single worth about 1/3 of what you invested. Obviously that was never going to make you any profit even if he paid for running costs.
If someone sells a "share" then make damn sure they spell out exactly how funds raised will be used and how (and when) they take their own cut. Otherwise you'll end up (as was the case here) paying a grossly inflated price for something then being surprised when you make a loss.
Yet as you may or apparently may not notice these were shares bought in BTC, not USD. We gave you BITCOINS, not $.
And even when you count like that, the numbers don't add up.
At the time of the IPO 1BTC was worth about 11USD. http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg150zczsg2012-08-01zeg2012-08-31ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv
Each share was bought at 0.25BTC, which was about 2.75USD
371 shares (not counting yours) equaled 1020 USD YET you decided to give us back ~0.11 a share *13.2$ = 538$.
What exactly you don't understand? You stole more than half (counting dividiends) of what was given to you!
EDIT: actually not given, as you were supposed to be only the operator, as these were, and I quote "PGM SHARES! NO BOND!"
And even when you count like that, the numbers don't add up.
At the time of the IPO 1BTC was worth about 11USD. http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg150zczsg2012-08-01zeg2012-08-31ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv
Each share was bought at 0.25BTC, which was about 2.75USD
371 shares (not counting yours) equaled 1020 USD YET you decided to give us back ~0.11 a share *13.2$ = 538$.
What exactly you don't understand? You stole more than half (counting dividiends) of what was given to you!
EDIT: actually not given, as you were supposed to be only the operator, as these were, and I quote "PGM SHARES! NO BOND!"
He's not actually scamming you on the closedown - you got screwed when you bought the shares in the first place. Here's his post that explains how (and just how badly) you got screwed:
I do not sell any BFL Singles into GLBSE anymore, eventhough I own more than 2.
I sold 1 BFL Single that I own to shareholders (1000 shares), I will not create any more shares in the near future.
Here is a picture of one of my Single`s:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B204dRi-nEXRdll5TC1mVGRmX0k
Hopefully I informed you enough.
Greetz
I sold 1 BFL Single that I own to shareholders (1000 shares), I will not create any more shares in the near future.
Here is a picture of one of my Single`s:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B204dRi-nEXRdll5TC1mVGRmX0k
Hopefully I informed you enough.
Greetz
He sold 1000 shares at .25 BTC each (250 BTC total = over $2500) and in return shareholders got ONE BFL single. That's where you lost your money - his closing down like this is just making your loss immediately obvious.
Mistake you made was assuming that some of the funds raised were going to buy new hardware - they weren't. If he released a new BFL single to the company that would have been accompanied by raising more funds by sellling new shares. The funds raised were just going into his pocket and in return you got a portion of a BFL single worth about 1/3 of what you invested. Obviously that was never going to make you any profit even if he paid for running costs.
If someone sells a "share" then make damn sure they spell out exactly how funds raised will be used and how (and when) they take their own cut. Otherwise you'll end up (as was the case here) paying a grossly inflated price for something then being surprised when you make a loss.
What was the last traded price per share?
###Was "PsychoticBoy - PGM buyback scam"
Psychotic boy is/was (now closed) the current operator of PGM.
THE THREAD: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1388250
ORIGINAL PGM THREAD: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/glbse-paladon-green-mining-pgm-including-asic-upgrade-no-bond-97263
PGM IPO'd in August on GLBSE, selling each share for 0.25 BTC what at the time equaled ~2.75USD
371 shares were sold (not counting past and current operators), raising 92.75BTC or 1020USD.
Today shareholders decided to close PGM, PsychoticBoy was supposed to do a buyback.
Instead he paid only 0.11BTC a share (~1.45$), giving back only 538$ out of 1020$ or 40.81BTC out of 92.75BTC not counting the dividends when GLBSE was closed.
I ask for the other half of our money or a scammer tag for the thief.
His explanation is:
Psychotic boy is/was (now closed) the current operator of PGM.
THE THREAD: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1388250
ORIGINAL PGM THREAD: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/glbse-paladon-green-mining-pgm-including-asic-upgrade-no-bond-97263
PGM IPO'd in August on GLBSE, selling each share for 0.25 BTC what at the time equaled ~2.75USD
371 shares were sold (not counting past and current operators), raising 92.75BTC or 1020USD.
Today shareholders decided to close PGM, PsychoticBoy was supposed to do a buyback.
Instead he paid only 0.11BTC a share (~1.45$), giving back only 538$ out of 1020$ or 40.81BTC out of 92.75BTC not counting the dividends when GLBSE was closed.
I ask for the other half of our money or a scammer tag for the thief.
His explanation is:
0.11 BTC a share is more than reasonable for a buyback with no trade history.
A new BFL Single SC (or BFL Single with Upgrade) will cost you 1300$, with a bitcoin price of 13.3$ you would have the right to get almost 0.1 btc a share.
I paid 0.11 btc a share this includes the outstanding dividends.
YET it is obvious that he kept half of the initial investments of his shareholders in his pocket. A new BFL Single SC (or BFL Single with Upgrade) will cost you 1300$, with a bitcoin price of 13.3$ you would have the right to get almost 0.1 btc a share.
I paid 0.11 btc a share this includes the outstanding dividends.
Jump to: