Given that you actually have the cash at the moment (or claim to) why don't you just offer to BUY the BTC and pay by bank transfer?  Or to make the seller even more confident pay by depositing cash into their account (but make sure seller has conducted transactions of that size, sending second before - as you'd be depositing the cash first due to your rather brand new existence here)?

That way you save on the WU fee and can pay a few % over spot making it worth their while whilst cutting their risk totally and saving yourself on total paid.

Obviously if you're trying to scam forget that idea - as it wouldn't allow you to.

I presume small amounts like that can be withdrawn immediately in the US (not from US myself so don't know just how hard it is getting cash out of a bank there - in the UK you can get that sort of sum immediately but need to give a day's notice in many banks for decent sized sums).

The chance of there being 1000 people meeting the listed criteria who read this forum is exactly 0%.  OP is therefore either:

Trolling, Incredibly stupid and/or trying to bluff his own failed order into being accepted.

I'd be amazed if he gets 10 legitimate PMs expressing interest - let alone 1000.  Not because there aren't 10 people who'd be interested - but because there aren't 10 people who are interested AND are dumb enough to think there's at least 990 more in the same boat.

I don't see how you believe 21 million bitcoins is a limit on its value.

If it made 1 million BTC profit per month that would give it an intrinsic value well over 21 million BTC by any reasonable means of calculation and be entirely possible with only 21 million BTC in circulation.

Are you really saying that if it accepted USD rather than BTC it could be worth more than 21 million - but can't even if it were to make exactly the same profits but denominated in BTC?

How about if it accepted USD for bets - but converted profits to BTC - could it then be worth more than 21 million?

Or how about if it accepted BTC for bets but immediately converted winnings to USD?

If it makes X BTC = Y USD profit/month then it should have an identical intrinsic value irrespective of which currency the profits are retained in and wagers are transacted in.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

What we refer to as exchanges (BTC.CO, Bitfunder) actually fill a whole bunch of different functions (exchange, broker, registrar, company bulletin board etc).

In RL an exchange has basically nothing to do with voting - voting would be handled by the company directly.  One body needs to track and record the results of votes.  If Carnth wants to do that off-site and record/publicise results somewhere else then that's fine - but remind me of the benefits of NOT having total votes recorded on either exchange?.

But that doesn't address the issue of investors on one site taking on part of the risk of default on the other exchange which they neither use nor, in the case of current BTC.CO investors, were even aware before they invested was a risk they were expected to take on in return for no benefit to them.  Obviously if current investors vote to accept that risk (and any dissenting are bought out at full value) then that's fine.

Yeah, this was just a pump and dump with a huge premine.  Amazed anyone would still touch it.

You could trade securities on LTC-Global.
You could use them to short LTC.
You could loan them to someone else at a higher interest rate.

etc.

If you don't have a need for loan then don't borrow LTC - but don't confuse that with there being no valid reason for ANYONE to want a loan.

Well yes - but I was talking about people doing it for a hobby, not doing it as profession/for a living.  If you do something for a living then you pretty much HAVE to make sure you cover your living expenses whether your investors make profit or a loss.

That's why I'd argue a competent hobbyist is a better investment than someone doing it for a living - as the hobbyist doesn't need to personally make a profit that covers the time/effort they put in (if they regularly DO then debatably it ceases to be a hobby). 

The problem around here is that there's plenty doing it for a hobby - but few with competence.  I'd argue that lack of competence is actually the root problem - with the hobbyist attitude exascerbating it by causing loads of incompetents to do the wrong thing (run a business they aren't competent to manage) for the right reason (to help/be a part of the community).

I partially agree with this.  The reason I don't fully agree is because different people's fun come from different aspects of running a business - some of which aren't as bad as others.  Here's my attempt to split up the hobbyists into a few categories (talking here primarily about ones that take in investment - though much of it also applies to ones that sell services).  Do note that this is ONLY

1.  The "I want to run a business" group.  A huge portion of BTC businesses fall into this category.  They're people with no experience of running businesses who want to do something to help/be a part of the community.  They have no clear plan of what they're doing and usually very shoddy reporting - as their fun comes from the DOING of it: reporting and actually making a profit for investors don't have much importance to them (though they vaguely hope they'll somehow luck into a profit).  In my view these people are actually a blight on the community - as they their enthusiasm sucks in investment which would be much better served being used for something productive.

2.  The "I want a profit" group.  The second largest portion of businesses (many are actually a mix of this and part 1) - especially prevalent in the mining sector.  These ones want to make some profit for themselves - and aren't that worried about things like being transparent, honest or fair to investors.  Their contracts are vague on details, strong on THEIR rights and weak on investors rights.  They ensure that even if their business is an abject failure they personally make money irrespective of how badly their investors do.  Their fun comes from personally making some money even if at the expense of investors rather than from turning a profit.  Many of these are borderline scammers - as they misrepresent their investments to get sales and don't properly disclose risks.  Reporting will tend to be of a higher quality than type 1 - their (personal) profit  and ability to attarct investors come from them looking fairly professional whilst actually losing investors' funds.  These are also of very little use to the community.

3.  The "Let's see how well I can do" group.  The tiny minority of hobbyist businesses.  Ones where the operator knows what to do and gets their enjoyment from running a successful (for them AND investors) business.  Part of that requires proper reporting and disclosure of risks - there's no fun or challenge in tricking people here (it's way too easy to do - as shown by the number of totally ridiculous schemes/businesses that have successfully leeched funds).  Actually making a profit for investors (and yourself) whilst surrounded by (and routinely dealing with) incompetents/scammers/idiots is a genuine challenge which a few will try to rise to.  Of course a lot of people who THINK they're in this group are actually in group 1.

As a hobbyist myself I'd like to think I'm in group 3 - but that's not really my call. 

The main difference between group 1 and 3 is competence.  Also group 3 will tend to be better at reporting negative news - they know sometimes things go wrong and that when they do the best approach is to face up to them, learn lessons from them and carry on.  Group 1 tend to try to hide bad news as they're embarassed about it, don't want to look bad and hope somehow it'll magically go away.  Group 2 report bad news, claim it was unexpected, blame it on someone/something else and move on: they don't need to address it - as their personal profits typically come from turnover rather than from profit so making a loss doesn't really harm them (other than in terms of long-term reinvestment - but they gave up on that as soon as they decided to make personal profit whilst investors lost out).

I'd contend that group 3 ARE hobbyists but otherwise don't meet the general complaint you had against hobbyists.  As their fun comes from the challenge of doing well, things going awry don't significantly detract from the fun: they just have to try a bit harder for a while to make up for it.  Which isn't to say that there's no fun in doing well - there definitely is.  But the harder it IS to do well, the more fun there is when you manage it.

It's legit - he got the first Avalon shipped.  We have no idea how many more (if any) have actually been sent to customers - but that one's real (there's plenty of pictures, logs etc around).

Nope it's not  reasonable to assume that - as I said, I'm pretty sure the motion would have got sufficient votes to pass ahd it lasted longer.  But it's a vote to make a very major change - so no assumptions should be made either way on how people vote: the vote should last long enough that all investors get their say.

For the record, I held (on behalf of my fund) Cognitive shares at time of the vote (still do) and voted Yes - my concern isn't this motion specifically passing but the principle of setting a precedent that contract changes can be made where only a minority of shareholders even vote (likely, in my view, to the voting period being too short for a majority to even become aware of its existence).

There's some things which, even in BTC land, can't be accelerated too much.

I should note that, in apparent contradiction to my stance here, my own fund HAS made contract changes twice with only 24 hour votes - but both times:

1.  The proposal was explained in detail some time before a vote went up - with no arguments raised against it (some questions, which I answered of course).
2.  Over 75% of all outstanding units voted yes with zero No votes and zero Abstains.
3.  I hold just under 50% myself - but only vote Yes if there's no significant No votes (I won't push through a contract change if there's any significant objection to it - obviously a 1 unit investor voting No wouldn't deter me).
4.  If I make a contract change I also offer to buy back any units at just above current value (this is necessary as mine's a fund - so shouldn't really change contract at all with outstanding units - this allows anyone who objects to get back more than if I closed the fund and restarted it with new contract).

So me passing motions in 1 day isn't really comparable - as there's factors making it very different in practice.

Emboldening is mine.

If you convert immediately but then don't sell 10,000 shares are you personally making up the difference if BTC rises vs USD in the interim? (Or keeping the profit  if it falls vs USD)?

Or does "immediately" actually mean "immediately - but not until after at least 10,000 shares have been sold"?

But then neither site shows the official result - one may show pass, the other fail and noone looking at either knows what actually happened.

If one was the "main" then those looking at it would see actual results and those looking at the other would see it was a pass-through and know to look at the main to see how any vote actually ended.

There's other problems with making two sites both the main as well - that was just the simplest one to point out.

Consider the situation if one site is hacked and funds stolen, or operator runs away or whatever.  Should current BTC.CO investors have to soak up losses caused by a listing on Bitfunder that went bad?  Or vice-versa?

Now consider it specifically from the perspective of current investors on BTC.CO.  Adding bitfunder as an equal investor exposes them to additional counter-party risk for no real benefit to themselves (with a limited number of investments there's no benefit to investors from increased capital).  Sure - the risk of Bitfunder disappearing is low - but ANY risk which delivers no benefit is bad.

With one main and the other a pass-through that sort of liability is already defined - the main is totally unaffected by anything which happens on the pass-through, the pass-through can be screwed by both platforms.

I honestly think not defining a main is pretty bad for a few reasons - not necessarily very obvious ones but valid ones nonetheless.  Either have one main and one pass-through - or run two seperate but otherwise identical funds.

Yeah maybe saying it was "gaming" it wasn't the most accurate terminology.  More accurately, perhaps, I was surprised to see that none of the big investors were taking a pretty simple (and cheap) step to ensure they left no cash on the table if capital requirements weren't met (without resort to MP himself).

If the floater is a small percentage of invested capital then the loss is so small when it isn't used (less than you'd immediately think - as the cost is offset to an extent by not paying losses on it if there's a losing month) that capital requirements only need to exceed total offered funds once every few years.  Of course if multiple investors start doing it then we get a second-level of gaming - where some could risk NOT doing it and rely on others actually doing it to get the benefits without the small cost.

If the 1500 BTC buys the current trading platform and business, what are YOU putting in for your 70% of shares?

If the 30% are worth 3375 BTC then your 70% are worth 7875 BTC.

As the existing business is being bought for 1500 I'm not seeing what you're personally bringing to the table to justify you getting 7875 BTC-worth of shares immediately.  Is ALL shareholders get in return for your 70% you running the business?

Though as you're forming a new company maybe I'm just misreading it - and you're putting in 7875 BTC yourself at the same face-value as the shares being sold to the public?  If so then it's an unusual way to do things but acceptable - though why you'd need 10k+ BTC to run an exchange I'm not sure: your post doesn't explain what that cash would be used for.

The total number of bitcoins in existence is irrelevant to the value of something.

Are you saying that NOTHING can be worth more than 21 million bitcoins?  So if I were to put 10 billio dollars up for sale they couldn't be worth more than 21 million bitcoins?

There's no correlation between the value of something and the single largest transaction that can be made to purchase a portion of it.

IF something is worth more than 21 million bitcoins then it just means noone can buy ALL of that something with bitcoins in a single transaction.  It in no way, of itself, makes the valuation wrong.

Well there's definitely an intention that they'll be listed on a private exchange before the first dividends are paid on them.  So you have three ways to trade at present depending on what level of trust the two parties have in one another:

1.  Noone sends anything now, but both commit to the trade later.
2.  Buyer sends cash now, seller promises to transfer the shares as soon as they're tradable.
3.  Seller promises to transfer shares soon as they're tradable, Buyer lodges cash with an escrow (that both accept).

I'd guess namworld would want #2 unless the price being paid was ridiculously high - as he has a good reputation and the only advantage of selling now is either to get a very high price OR to get use of the cash now.  Cash right now CAN be worth a lot more than cash in a few weeks time.

Also, where are the historical accounts?  Your post makes reference to current growth - but you appear to have forgotten to add the link to the records demonstrating that growth.

I assume the current assets/liabilities are also detailed at the link you forgot to add.

Quite.

If the 1500 BTC is to buy the licences/software/right to run the exchange etc - then what are your 70% of shares in return for?  70% of profits AND equity seems a lot for a management fee.

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

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

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

Lets take your example where there's 3 guys A,B and C all putting in 5k.

At the moment (i.e. not doing what I propose) their bids would have been:

A = 5000 @ X
B = 5000 @ Y
C = 5000 @ Z

Where X,Y and Z represent whatever values they otherwise believe are best for them to bid.  I'd NEVER suggest bidding at 0% - as the investment is NOT risk-free.  What X,Y and Z are (or should be) is a different discussion - but in general it should be the lowest rate at which you'd prefer your capital to be risked rather than unused.

If A was to do this on his own then instead of bidding 5000 @ X he'd make 2 bids:

4900 @ X
100 @ 500% (or any rate large enough to ensure grabbing all profits)

If the demand for capital doesn't exceed available bond capital then only  4900 of his capital would be used and his profit (or loss) would be 98% of what he'd have got had he just bid all 5000 @ X.  So the WORST outcome of this scenario is losing 2% of profits.

If demand for capital exceeds available bond capital then the bonds get ALL the capital.  For this to be profitable for A, the gains when insufficient capital is offered need to exceed the 2% of profits he loses when sufficient capital is offered.

But now consider if A, B and C collude to a very limited extent - by combining to make the 100 bid.  Then the bids look like:

A = 4966 @ X
B = 4966 @ Y
C = 4966 @ Z

(A+B+C) 100 @ 400%

Each of them now only has to throw in 33.3333 BTC for the high bid - ensuring they all get the lot if insufficient capital is offered.  That only costs each of them under 1% of profits when sufficient capital is offered in return for guaranteeing a scoop when when there's a shortfall.  Does the benefit from this more than cover that?  Well take a look at the last 2 months and you tell me?  Remember - I suggested this BEFORE this month.  How would the real equivalents of A,B and C have done this month had they done something like this?  How many months of giving up under 1% (or 2% if done solo) of profits does that cover?