|
Also.. if you were about to drop $200Million into a mining outfit... you'd probably have dropped a massive chunk straight into buying bitcoins just before publicizing the news.
I still smell a stinking ball of incestuous journalists feeding off the same rumour. Would love to be wrong though!
|
|
|
|
|
This article smells like total BS.
Someone has confused one Avalon for another Avalon.
|
|
|
|
This is related to the price of btc how?
Well 2 years ago it was the sort of thing that might have moved the price - now - not so much. It's also economics related - and speculative... but hey.. mods will mod... and so the thread moved. This just came to mind: It would be a really good trolling opportunity to come up with a thread which hazek and Bliz bounce at each other because they think it doesn't belong their forum. Too bad hazek isn't here right now.  That would be fun! FWIW - the pinned post that the speculation forum "... is for the speculation and discussion of bitcoin's value" came in 2012 - well after this thread was created. Anyway I firmly believe that this thread is utterly appropriate for Economy>Economics>Speculation reporting! |
|
|
|
|
Well.. I don't know how many girls use Bitcoin -
but girls set up groups such as The Ada Initiative (adainitiative.org) - which purports to focus on women in open technology and culture...
but then they (adainitiative.org) reject the idea of Bitcoin as a donation method and fail to introduce their sheep members to a new and vibrant open technology when it's pointed out to them.
I dunno - if this group is any indication of the sorts of groups they form to redress the gender imbalance in tech - then they'll continue to be left out and we'll only see a few mavericks here.
|
|
|
|
This is related to the price of btc how?
Well 2 years ago it was the sort of thing that might have moved the price - now - not so much. It's also economics related - and speculative... but hey.. mods will mod... and so the thread moved. |
|
|
|
I knew it! My big toe is always right... *and* they now accept BTC donations. Ok.. so I was a mere 2 years early on that one.  For my next 'big toe' insight... umm.. dunno.. I got nothing... but I'll let you know when it twinges again! |
|
|
|
|
So... realsolid had to set up his own exchange in order to breathe life into his solidcoin/microcash frankenstein.
eh.. I'll be steering well clear of this one.
|
|
|
|
To protect the interest of early investors, share dilution CANNOT occur until the all three following conditions have been fulfilled:
1. Total cumulative dividends paid/share equaling 0.032BTC/share; i.e., twice the IPO priced paid in dividends
2. Share Dilution will not occur until after August 1, 2014 if the situation would arise
3. Major developments/events that would lead to/maintain BTCGarden's targeted network portion.
That said, there would be an announcement before any further shares are sold, with existing shareholders have priority to purchase more. From what aiwill said, it's to be used as a last resort only.
I think there is one more protection that shareholders should be pushing for. (Or should have pushed for before the IPO) That is - that all newly issued shares should be in exchange for more capital only... ie not as 'rewards' to staff/management. There is nothing I can see in the statements above that would stop them issuing 'free' (or cheap) shares to insiders at the same time as they issue more for capital. I have no problem with the share dilution if it's done purely to grow the company and the shares are issued at a fair market price. |
|
|
|
|
27% of the 1st share batch now sold.
Not exactly exciting - but still looks to me like they'll fill this batch in a few days.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been waiting since July 14th for my share transfer.
I'm now emailing from a different account in case there was some email issue between us.
Surely this could have been automated (or even manually processed) just from the inbound transfers he received?? It will show up in their transaction history.
|
|
|
|
|
I previously saw the 'share dilution' thing as a strong disincentive to invest - but with the promise not to dilute before 0.032BTC paid in dividends each share, and the promise to limit the rate to 1Million per year (10%) - I now think it's a smart move to make sure they can raise capital for future generation chips as necessary.
Clearly, with the sheer size of this IPO, there's not as much opportunity for speculators to pump and make quick gains - but the large amount of capital puts the company in a strong position to be a serious player - so overall I think this will probably develop into a solid Bitcoin stock with a fair prospect for respectable profit.
|
|
|
|
|
Over 20% sold of the first tranche of 2 Million shares.
I expect it'll sell out over the next day or two. It'll be interesting to see what price they release the 2nd 2Million shares at.
Anyone buying at higher than 0.016 will be taking a big risk that they release the next lot at only a tiny amount higher.
It seems strange to me that they haven't given some approximate indication of how much higher they might price the 2nd tranche... because without some idea, people won't be in any hurry to bid up prices.
|
|
|
|
$16 million valuation seems a bit ridiculous when you are only at the tape out stage.
How can this be justified when Labcoin is in a similar situation and the IPO price was set at a tiny fraction of this.
It looks like the btcgarden IPO is struggling for bids compared to how quickly Labcoin filled. Arguably that could be because most people have their money tied up in the excitement surrounding Labcoin, so it's a bad time for Btcgarden to open up for bids... or it could be as you suggest - they're trying to raise a bit too much capital for what they've got. They're trying to raise 32 000BTC (1st 2000 000 shares at 0.016) But if they get it... it's a nice warchest to help compete with Labcoin, ASICMINER, Bitfury etc ...Plus there's the share dilution thing, although I'm actually leaning towards this being a good idea. It could allow the company to be far more aggressive in expanding compared to competitors who don't have this as a fund-raising option. |
|
|
|
Interesting to see this play out - what happens if more bids are placed then shares when the IPO occurs? Are the shares divided evenly based on order size, or is it first-come first serve (Which would defeat the purpose of the lock, as far as I can tell)
First in, first out. There are multiple orders sitting on 0.001 ( here. Those whose orders are placed > 0.001 will pay the additional coins, when the ask wall is placed. Currently BTC-TC's asset have a combined market cap of ~170k Bitcoin and a daily average volumen of 3700 Bitcoin which peaked at nearly 9.5k a few days before. I don't expect this IPO filled within minutes, but nevertheless in a short timeframe. The fill rate isn't steady and fastens at the end. If you want to be very sure to get your shares, place an order on 0.001. Good luck, LABCOIN! I'm following. Edit: burnside should limit how many shares a person can purchase (although that can be manipulated by opening up several accounts)
it appears people just want to pick up shares assuming price will go up and dump as soon as it does.
people putting over the ipo price hoping those orders will get filled first and that the price bump will be significant. the things people do to make a buck
No, I'm against any regulation. And it would be crazy if you miss to get shares in an 7000 Bitcoin IPO, because single entitites purchased "too much". The price won't change because of those orders which are higher than the IPO price. Relax please. So you're saying that even those orders submitted above the 0.001 price will be filled in the order they were placed? There's no danger of my shares already bid at 0.001 being displaced by late high bids if the IPO is oversubscribed? I couldn't find any info about the procedure for IPOs on btct - do you know this from experience or is it specified somewhere? |
|
|
|
Sadly - the kipochi service seems to be largely vapourware at this point.
There is a 'beta' - but customer support appears to be non-existant. I sent $10AUD of funds to a friend in Kenya over 24hrs ago - no sign of it, no transaction record in my account and no answers to support questions even after a PM to @KipochiPay on twitter.
I have been contacted by a media organisation 'Think Africa Press' for feedback on experiences with Kipochi... but unfortunately I've nothing positive to report.
I really hope these guys get their act together.
Did you meet your friend through an unexpected email? No. Through a family member whose partner is Kenyan. Thanks for asking, because you know... when you use a 'suspicious' currency like Bitcoin it's important to point out that some entire continents are a bit 'suspicious' too.. right? |
|
|
|
|
Sadly - the kipochi service seems to be largely vapourware at this point.
There is a 'beta' - but customer support appears to be non-existant. I sent $10AUD of funds to a friend in Kenya over 24hrs ago - no sign of it, no transaction record in my account and no answers to support questions even after a PM to @KipochiPay on twitter.
I have been contacted by a media organisation 'Think Africa Press' for feedback on experiences with Kipochi... but unfortunately I've nothing positive to report.
I really hope these guys get their act together.
|
|
|
|
I'm unable to withdraw funds due to maintenance. Does anyone know when this maintenance is scheduled to be completed?
I just hit this problem too. Frustrating that there is no indication of how long it has been down or when it might be fixed. |
|
|
|
|
All I have to say to this is:
With Bitcoin we can *be* the NWO
(next step *be* the alien)
|
|
|
|
|
I did a transfer on Bitfunder
Date: 2013-07-14
Time: 18:24:55
I emailed as per the instructions...
Only 92 shares.. but how long is this supposed to take?
|
|
|
|
Interesting blog! Congrats on the house being 'back in black' The house yes.. but not all investors. An interesting effect of investment dilution is that some investors who were in profit last time the site was at +1550 - are now in a loss once it's back up to +1550. These investors were being rational in sticking it out - (because the site's luck at any point isn't dependent on what happened just before), but they lost out to investors who subscribe to a form of 'gamblers fallacy' and were 'lucky' enough to be less invested during the downside. Are you sure this is what actually happened? Is this the case for your investment? I'm doubtful for two reasons: - I had increased (more than doubled) my investment just before the site took that huge dip; as a result, I had a loss of 10% at the lowest point. I didn't divest, and now I'm againt at a profit (though smaller than before the dip) - There was a big wave of divestments (approx 30%) on the way down, in particular when the house was already in the negative - and not on the top of the profits as you suggest I'm sure some investors are still in the negative, but I don't think these are those that were just sticking it out as you suggest. Well ... I had the bulk of my investment in all the time. I added another 20% during the slide down - and divested half of that right after the +/- 1300BTC celeste 'incident'. e.g (not actual figures - but ratios correct) 100BTC in the whole time (starting at +1550). Added 20BTC some time on the way down (when investment loss at about -6 I think) . Divested 10BTC at the 1300 incident. Result - by the time site was back at +1550: -0.7BTC I was down 15% at one point. Perhaps more.. I didn't see the figures at the site's lowest profit point. I don't think the 10BTC in/out contributed much in the way of profit or loss during the relatively brief period it was in play - but I suppose it's difficult to analyze without a complete log. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
