lol new user, IPO. I'm tired of this, really. I don't post in Securities a lot but I am seeing this daily.
We need more proof to validate why and how we can trust you with our money without you delivering anything.
This is why the WoT is such a powerful tool, and why you really can't trust any of these 'offerings' Even with 'proof' of validation, you still don't know the OP from Adam. We've seen this so many times in this forum; the OP may look credible, but it is still an 'Over-the-counter' interaction, with no regulation. The counter-party risk is huge here and, as history tells us, rarely works out for the best. At least if you could look in the WoT, and see that, "Hey, Jimbo has dealt with this guy, and I trust Jimbo's opinion," then you would have a fighting chance. The plain fact is, you won't know if any of these offerings are a scam until it is too late. If you're newbie that is reading this, and don't believe me, just hang around for a few months and watch. You'll see that you are swimming in a sea of scams. |
|
|
|
|
Woah, this thread is still active? I guess you could say it's... ActiveWhining™
|
|
|
|
Ken didn't run with the initial ipo money for the same reason madoff didn't run with the initial money, so he could make more money in the long run.
Bingo I think successful scams are well planned from the outset and well executed buy people who are very talented. Sound like Ken?
Yes, it does sound like him. Ken executed the scam very well. Looking back, it is pretty obvious that he wasn't just your run-of-the-mill, incompetent businessman; he was purposefully deceitful and misleading (which can be considered a crime). This is the crucial difference. If ActM isn't enough proof, just check out some of his past ventures: Announcing TorEx "Anonymous Bitcoin Exchange"Million-dollar Web HostingIn the end, it is not about being butt-hurt; Ken won, and it is indeed over. It is about learning from mistakes and not repeating them. If you take a look at bitcointalk.. well, I would rather just gamble BTC away on a dice throw. Again, at least it is provably fair and not some random dude on the internet. If you're looking to increase your BTC... you probably won't find a way here. I can't think of one venture here that is still providing a return to investors who bought at IPO. Day-trading profits? Sure, but then you are just sticking the bag with the 'greater fool.' Sounds kind of immoral to me. |
|
|
|
I made the same move myself when the Bitfunder news broke only to get scammed out of a tidy profit by Danny Brewster. I wonder how things could have turned out if Uncle Sam had left btct.co and Bitfunder alone. I'd also love to know how much, if anything, VE had to play in Uncle Sam's interest in Ken. I'd be especially keen to know if Ken's involvement in the HF bankruptcy was impeded by the MSD's announcement and if a significant deal was scuppered by the untimely announcement. Too much of a coincidence?
If you honestly think this thing had a chance of working you are insane. Neo didn't work because danny was a scammer. This didn't work because Ken is. Who cares what happened to btct.co bitfunder or hashfast when Ken couldn't accomplish a thing throughout this entire process. He couldn't even ship in hand product in a timely fashion. He was also a well-documented liar, and didn't even try to move product (probably by design). There are still a good number of customers still waiting for refunds, and we all know of Ken's non-existent customer service; also probably by design. Why try to sell and have a good reputation if you already have the money? Just fade away... In the end, Ken was just another scammer. Any newcomers thinking of investing gambling in this space should take a look at this saga in its whole and hopefully notice a pattern that shows up with the majority of scams/fails in this place: - Initial offering; clouded in ambiguity and hyped by wild speculation from shills and/or dummies. Any attempt to get more info is met with a convenient excuse, such as 'NDA' or 'CEO is smart and playing his cards close to his chest' - n00bs who don't know any better (I fell into this category) buy into it and decide to gamble - People who do know better try to warn others - they fail, being labeled 'trolls' or 'the competition' - Censorship begins, because the 'trolls are going to destroy the company's reputation' - Eventual fallout: OP disappears or just screws everyone and still hangs around |
|
|
|
Harsh criticism indeed. Would you care to offer up two competing alternatives which are more likely to see a large return on investment? Edit: DTS, myself and other noob investors made the school boy error of placing all or most of our eggs into one basket. My current thinking is to invest perhaps only one or two bitcoins into multiple high risk startups while holding 50% in cold storage. It's called learning from ones mistakes. Edit 2: Investing in this space is a lottery and so it should be. It's a gamble and the odds are with the house. Some of the better ideas such as NEOBEE turned into a nightmare. Ken's idea of creating a large scale mining operation as well as selling products can not be criticised (AS AN IDEA) but the execution can. You see, human nature dictates that the weak shall blame others for their bad decisions rather than taking responsibility for their own mistakes. It's called being human and it's all good.  Than buying ETH? 1) Hold Bitcoin 2) Like you just said, it is like a lottery 'investing' in this space. So, why not just place a wager on a dice throw somewhere? You can set the odds however you like, plus you have the advantage of it being provably fair. Not only that, but you don't have the months and months of drama that goes along with all the fails in this space. |
|
|
|
Some people will point out the obvious flaws in this plan, but I'm sure some geniuses out there will give your friend money, they always do.
Sunrise, sunset... |
|
|
|
Of course, the best ones came from the man himself:  |
|
|
|
Update made to the front page: |
|
|
|
...
As well I'm simply asking you to provide proper evidence to your your claim.
...
The scope of this 'claim' is about how most Havelock securities are a bad investment. Not listing the other 'exchanges' does not invalidate the facts presented. |
|
|
|
...
You are giving me the chart of the market's trades, not the asset's value. Some people are stupid enough to trade without understanding what they are doing with regard to the exchange rate (see this thread), so try looking at the end result instead of the market perception and maybe you'll grasp the concept? When you break everything down per trade in USD value, you can actually see the real performance of these assets, most of which are still horrible.
Maybe I'm one of the stupid ones, but isn't an asset's value determined by what people would pay for it on the open market (among other things)? What if you want to hedge against dollars and Bitcoin?
Buy gold and silver? How would buying a BTC-denominated security hedge against BTC? |
|
|
|
You have an agreement with a UK bank. Which you're not at liberty to discuss. And an agreement with CryptoFinancial. Which you're also not at liberty to discuss. CryptoFinancial is also not at liberty to discuss their banking arrangements. Which begs the question: ...
-Tell us your age, your previous experience in managing multinational currency exchanges, how you plan to spend your summer vocation, and when you hope to finish secondary school.
... I can discuss our agreement with crypto financial, it is simply information I have which is not publicly available that I am not willing to share. No, I am not in secondary school although yes I am young. Feel free to hold that against me if you wish, although I doubt that would sway your opinion. As for previous experience with multi national currency exchanges, none. Then again I cannot thing of a single CEO of a bitcoin exchange that does.I don't feel like this statement helps your case. You admit that you have no experience running an exchange. I appreciate the honesty, but the fact remains that you are not experienced. You can't expect *reasonable* investors to think that their BTC would be safer in this venture than it would be if it were just sitting in a wallet appreciating in value. Secondly, those other CEOs without experience lost a lot of investor and/or users' money (whether through outright scamming or just plain negligence). The ones still standing are probably on borrowed time. Pointing to them and saying, 'See? I'm the average' is silly IMO. |
|
|
|
He needs to remain silent. He told me. He is optimistic for the future of the company.
Ken's been optimistic for months. what has it got him? An investigation, a possible fine, and a bunch of hardware he can't plug in or ship. Things are definitely looking up. yall need to stop trying to talk sense into Zum. as I learned long ago with several of my family members you cant rationalize with an irrational person. if a rock wont believe he's a rock then you cant do anything about it. You are right, this is taking up too much of morning, anyway  I like to try and believe my posts are warning away naive newbies from Zum's crazy rationalizations, but I think Zum is doing a good job of that on his own, so I'll leave him be. |
|
|
|
Without more information, especially about you and your experience in running an entertainment channel how can you have anyone take you seriously.
We're going to need A LOT of information. So please share as much as you have.
Indeed. If OP is serious, they should start with providing identity information. Are they incorporated and where? Articles of Incorporation? Names, addresses, experience. All this must be verifiable in some way. Pay attention to this detail: Yes we currently have advertisers and also a $100,000 promotion deal being worked on that can be disclosed in full detail once they are complete and our Investment phase has started.
Once all your BTC is in OP's hands, THEN he will tell you about this amazing deal. Why not work out the deal, generate revenue for a while, and then IPO with a proven concept? |
|
|
|
Oh boy. I don't even know what to say anymore. When I first came to this forum, I wondered why there were so many trolls. Now I see why. I am the creator of a new innovative Network called BitNetworkTV. BitNetworkTV is a new network/channel that can be viewed on any online device which offers unique programming. I am currently working on the first show for BitNetworkTV and it's sure to be a hit. if you would like to learn more information feel free to private message me. BitNetworkTV will be open for investments once the official announcement is made a long with all other crucial information.
Anyways, probable scam, etc. |
|
|
|
...
Also how much money did ken paid himself instead of paying dividends?
Well, let's check the financial reports... oh wait, that's right... @JimmyJazz - what about the customers that have been waiting for refunds for over half a year? The numerous checks sent out with misspellings and/or weren't signed? Telling shareholders 'products have shipped' when it was nothing but slide-rails? How about those six months where shareholders couldn't sell but Ken allowed people to buy in? None of that is fishy to you? |
|
|
|
 .........When is the shareholder's meeting? That will help any pain I have endured from my loss. I say we all jump on a google hangout and get a pre-meeting going. oh yeah and 550 FREAKIN Satoshis!!! Hi Jasun, what shareholder's meeting is this you mention?  In all seriousness, all anyone can do now is keep in contact with the MSD and/or legal counsel of their choice. MSD Info: Shawn HagertyInvestigatorMissouri Secretary of State, Securities Division 600 W. Main St., Box 1276 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-526-3901 573-526-3124 (fax) shawn.hagerty@sos.mo.gov Wood Law Info: Learn from this, and move on. That is what I'm attempting to do. Lucky for us, Bitcoin is here to stay (maybe), so at least we still have that. |
|
|
|
...
If you can't handle the downside risk of an investment that's your fault. When MSD ruling becomes official, trying to step outside that will be useless (please explain your thinking if you disagree) I'm not sure if a full refund is possible, but this isn't just a regular old investment gone bad. Ken is literally burning money. Checking out the CEO is probably something you should do and part of the risks with investing in things, but that doesn't give the CEO the right to waste the money. If people think that there was fraud, they have a right to try and do something about it. Agreed. The crucial difference here is that Ken was both deceptive and negligent in the way he went about this venture. You could argue 'caveat emptor,' but I don't think that should excuse someone like Ken from this type of action. Nor should that invalidate people trying to recoup what they lost. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
