TheSwede75 : Thank you for the update.

Though, one thing to consider, regardless of what they are saying.

What benefit does labcoin itself have by continuing things such as mining via other chips etc if there is no longer an IPO and Burnside is probably keeping a close eye on the shares they did not IPO?

The long con only works in Labcoin's favor if they have sock account/s on BTCT buying and selling with the news / lackof.
I expect that Burnside would have already investigated any accounts similarly match this criteria.

It's not like they are accepting pre-orders, constantly delaying shipments, show up with a box of empty fans and then start to ship another 6~8 months later.

I  am probably missing the reasoning they have not already bailed. Be it now, or later, they have little to gain unless they are sock-trading the shares.

If they are really in for the long con... Why not take massive pre-orders and "sell the chips" or units?
If they tried to disappear now its already fraud/theft. Might as well take bigger numbers with it?

-Ukyo

An awkward 0.13590804 btc has been deposited into the address now.

Agreed.
So far I have not seen payouts that match my own 3 avalons.

-Ukyo

As of this point no intention to sell.
The BTC I put in went in with the potential expectation to become 0.
I will be seeing this through.

Another 0.2 btc

Getting fairly constant.

Then we have an agreement. That's exactly where I stand.

I was not aware there was proof of anything? I apologize I must have missed something.

As to once proof is found, it says delisting. Nothing about warning users away without giving a factual reason.

Based on your quote either:
A. The requirement half of this was not met.
or
B. The result was not carried out as mentioned.

Somehow something went wrong somewhere if this was to be invoked.
I still do not see anything in there about "If there is lack of communications for an unspecified amount of time then we will warn all investors that other investors may be concerned without any solid concrete proof or bothering to mention the lack of communications or timeframe provided and continue to keep that information away from the investment page."

Again, my issue is not necessarily about the share price itself but the effecte of the message being non-factual hearsay instead of proper facts which are only being distributed after the fact in part and not whole. At what point does "a lot of controversy" merit a reason to spread more controversy? When it is 5 people? 10? Or just the operators belief?

Rumor: "a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth."
Hearsay: "something heard from another person : something that you have been told"

The warning meets both of these criteria unless there is a proven fact to back it which was not revealed.

There is no reason for an exchange to partake in the spreading of rumors and hearsay.


He was placing a warning to users that "There is a lot of controversy over the reliability of the operator of this asset."
So does this mean Burnside has proven that Labcoin has failed is unreliable? Or is this his opinion? Or is he just parroting forum users?
If he has, why has the asset not been frozen? If he has not, why is he spreading unknown factors/rumors/hearsay?
"Because people should know", "Just in case" ? Just in case of what? That's damaging.
Spreading unconfirmed rumor discredit's labcoin and it's operators with unproven opinionated slander.

Sure, you could "Labcan has already xxx" Great. That is fine for them to do it. It does not give someone else with authority to do it to them.

Prior to the message, Labcoin posted a signed address and said mining income will begin to arrive there.
Also prior to the message, the address did in fact get posted and some coins were deposited at least from Slush.

You can argue all you want about whats in the address and who is sending what but unless Burnside knows for fact that the asset operator is not the mining party and unreliable he should not continue to spread rumors causing additional damaging effects to both the asset, the operator and the investors.

Sure, you can argue poor communications from that point on and prior but that is no different than most of the other asset operators. (Not to mention the Chinese holiday.)
Even FriedCat has had little to no forum posting in weeks/months and continues to do what he does with much speculation and controversy of others yet the same warning on the AsicMiner-PT nor does one appear on ActiveMiner, etc.

Another .2 BTC deposited.

Ah hah! You found the main point at hand.

That was the problem.
There was no information a continued to spread unconfirmed controversy.

The main point was not that it should not have been made but the information contained therein and how that information could effect the asset itself.

So at least the main point got across.

Similarly, why are they not saying "HAH! See?? We ARE mining _something_! Equipment issues though. ".
That is the discouraging part.

You have just merged two different things.

A. They made a post about mining that was not redacted. (Does the exchange have proof one way or another to force a redact?)
If proof has been requested and no responsive given in a timely manner, then the Exchange should make note of that to the investors and/or halt trading.

B. The warning is that there is controversial speculation. Nothing about if any news post is or is not a fact or fallacy. And therefore as is, unwarranted.

Correct, it should have stated that fact, not the hearsay and opinions of others is my point.
As of this point it is impossible to determine if the damages would have been more or less.

You are correct and I agree 100%.

The exchange does not know the facts behind the situation and made a public statement.

Statements should be coming from LabCoin.

-Ukyo

If all are lucky, a raging success who's IPO originated on BTCT.

Assuming someone else has not lost quite a bit of value recently and thought it may be more fruitful to point their miners at the address as well.
A few parts of a btc from enough miners can add up, increase share price since no one is confirming or denying and then they can sell off and not be at such a loss.

Wonder how much better it would make labcoin look if I pointed my avalons? (I will not.)
This is just my point.

Though, I am curious if the pool would send multiple payments to the same address at the same time or sum them into one payment if this was done.

On another note, another 0.2 BTC has made it's way to the account.

I do agree that I believe Bunrside has no ill intentions towards users.

"WARNING -- There is a lot of controversy over the reliability of the operator of this asset. Please place your orders accordingly."

I am an exchange operator and this may be seen in poor view and many will disagree however the following is the personal opinion of myself as an investor in Labcoin.

As a Labcoin share holder who has not sold, I feel the message has done financial harm to Labcoin investors as it could easily be put on many asset's pages and has received special treatment never used before. (To the best of my knowledge)

Not to defend Labcoin's actions or justify the asset or argue that nothing should have been posted or done, just that it has carries suggestive implications without stating any facts.

This message carries no facts or merits of any kind and has only necessarily caused a form of market devaluation and manipulation.

In another thread it was mentioned being posted due to lack of response from the issuer.
If that is the case, please change the message to say that there is a lack of communicative response from the issuer to the exchange and not that there is "a lot of controversy".
As to weather posting the facts of a lack of communication would have caused the exact same devaluation, this can no longer be proven now and may potentially have had a much smaller impact.
There is a lot of controversy on many many many assets. Just because one is in the spotlight more does not mean the exchange needs spotlight it as well without stating any facts.

The immediate price drop of the asset following the posting of the speculative non-factual suggestive message (regardless of any potential issues with the asset) has cost investors thousands of bitcoins in losses by the message.

10,000,000 shares and a trade price of about 0.0025 btc per share at the time prior to posting having a roughly 25,000 valuation dropping to 0.0015 15,000 valuation.

Again, regardless of if there is the controversy or not, the exchange should not be posting non-factual information that could cause potential changes to the market value of an asset.
This is akin to the exchange posting a message similar to "Many users expect this asset to do very well. Place your orders accordingly."

The site already reminds users to be careful with their investments.

I do not like to see people get scammed, I think there are many potential actions from an exchange point of view.
I do not think causing already concerned investors massive losses by spreading controversy is one of them.

Speeding up potential drops in valuation is not within the scope of an exchange protecting it's investors or in the investors best interest.
Halting trade on an asset if there is a factual proven issue (or even extreme lack of communications between issuer and exchange) is within scope of investor protection.
The job of the exchange is to protect investors and offer a reliable service.
Who protected investors from the price drop ensued by the relay of non-factual "controversy" by the exchange?

Feel free to flame me for the message. I fully expect it from some. I may be very wrong and I do not intent to make a continued argument over it.
I am just stating an opinion that has been bugging me all day that I wanted to share.
As one of the already aforementioned concerned investors, I feel that this only made things worse and should at least be corrected.

Yes.