Sold   1784
Swapped   0
Total   1784
Price   0.009322
Total   16.630448
Less Fee   16.5971871
Man Fee   0.497915613

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1086.662242
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds    379.88000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9   202.7240036
Coinlenders Cash   0
Just-Dice Balance    185.67300000
TOTAL ASSETS    1,945.64924593
   
Outstanding MINING   206462
Outstanding SELLING   206462
Outstanding PURCHASE   12864
Effective Units   219326
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   112,628,549
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00002233
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00111629
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00223259
365 days (Buyback)    0.00814895
405 days (IPO)    0.00904199
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.00893036
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.00915361
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,940.75259779
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.00884871
Days Dividend Post Div   396.34
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,940.75259779
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.00884871
PURCHASE selling price    0.009291
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.008672
   
J-D House profit at report   5844

Because most existing funds were already paid to Hashfast - so any gain from the increase in price of BTC gos to Hashfast not Icedrill.  That was always clear from day 1 - it's not something that should be surprising.

Dates were always published when payments would be made to Hashfast - and the funds raised so far (less those held back for infrastructure) were paid in August.  I know that - and I don't even have any special interest in this security (it's just one of many that I trade).

Think you missed a change in the contract.  Even if no more shares sell Icedrill now proceeds - just with the private share count reduced so public investors get 10 GH/share (or whatever the guaranteed amount was).  It IS better for investors if more of the shares sell - but not enormously so.

Failure to sell more shares is pretty horrible for the issuer - but not a disaster for investors (if they make a loss then they wouldn't necessarily have done a lot better even if all shares sold).

EDIT: When I say it's horrible for the issuer that assumes their profit was intended to come from mining.  If their profit was always intended to come from some deal with/investment in the hardware supplier then obviously they're still fine.

Why would anyone who wanted to buy shares create a bidwall at .00138 when they can get the shares cheaper by waiting?  The single main thing driving the price down is the apparent panic by some people to sell their shares - that sends a very clear signal to anyone actually intending to buy that if they wait a bit longer they may be able to buy even cheaper.

It isn't the responsibility of investors to bail out other investors at above market rates.

If you hold shares and believe they're UNDERVALUED then you should be looking to buy not sell.
If you hold shares and believe they're OVERVALUED then why did you buy them for more than current market price?  As surely they were even more overvalued then?
If you were just trading and got caught with them then that's a risk you take trading.

I got caught very slightly with these but that happens from time to time and is no big deal (and of course I bought below IPO so aren't too fussed - just can't flip for a profit yet).  If it falls a bit more I may well even buy some more - but all the time I see posts like yours I know there's a good chance they'll go even lower so there's no rush to buy even if I think they're good value at present (I'm not making any comment either way on what I believe their value is).

It's too late to do that now if that wasn't a condition imposed when the sale occurred.  You can't sell someone something then later impose conditions on it - even when, sensibly, those conditions should have been imposed in the first place.  And how would such a ban be implemented anyway?  Only practical way to do it is NOT to transfer the shares until after IPO has ended - and the horse has already bolted on that option.

The practical problem (ignoring another issue already explained by Greg - that exchanges shouldn't be doing an SEC-type role) is that there's no "one size fits all" solution for accounting.

Traditional accounts - of the type pasted earlier by yourself - are only really relevant for some types of businesses.  Why, for example, should I provide them for things like pass-throughs?  All that matters on those is that:

a) I hold enough of the underlying asset to back the shares I issue myself.
b) I pass on any/all received dividends (minus any fee detailed in the contract).
c) I meet any other commitments defined in the contract (such as any provisions regarding redemption or exchanging for underlying assets).

The actual cash-flow is entirely irrelevant and not the business of investors in any event.

What matters is what Greg already stated - that the contract contain a commitment to provide the appropriate level of detail for the nature of the security.  And that they then provide it when operational or are delisted.  There's two, MAYBE three, points at which the assessment of what an appropriate level of detail is:

1.  By burnside when administratively unlocking the asset.
2.  By moderators when voting to approve.
3.  By every individual investor when choosing to invest.

I disagree with the apparent view that all responsibility is somehow shovelled onto #1.  If #2 exists then #1 has no need to be particularly rigorous - because if burnside is personally meant to ensure quality then there's no justification for #2 to exist as a stage at all.

I don't have a moderator vote - though I do hold some shares in the BTC-TC passthrough to LTC-Global shares.  Lack of any information about accounting is one of the reasons why I vote NO on a large number of its motions regarding securities - especially mining ones where there's no commitment to providing regular updated lists of assets.

EDIT:  Don't read the above as meaning that I believe the current moderator system is good or working as it should.  That is NOT my view.  But all the time that's the system the responsibility for quality in listings HAS to primarily rest with moderators.  And the responsibility for investiing wisely will ALWAYS lie with individual investors.

This.

As a potential investor I'm actually not opposed to the idea of being able to track you down physically if problems occurred with my investment in you.  There's plenty of valid reasons for staying anonymous - protecting investors isn't one of them.  It's far more likely that you'll steal our funds than that someone else will.

If you don't believe me then have a read through old threads.  How many are there where the asset issuer ran off with investors' funds then nothing happened because noone knew his/her identity?  How many are there where there's a credible claim that some third party stole the funds because the asset issuer's identity was known?  Now run by us again how keeping your identity secret protects investors.

Disclosure : I issue securities and haven't disclosed my identity in public (some on the forums know it - but not because of my securities).  That has little to do with protecting investors and a lot to do with protecting myself.  Keeping my identity non-public is primarily of benefit to me, not to my investors and I'm amazed anyone would try to claim otherwise.

It's not a lot of use proving you're MR X unless burnside had already accepted that MR X owned the account in question.  Everyone actually has an identity that they can prove is them - the problem is proving that identity is the one that owns the account.

I'd certainly hope that noone who produced a letter from lawyer, doctor or whatever could take control of MY funds just because they had convincing proof that they had a name.  What you refer to is acceptable proof of proving an identity (and only in the same country) - and has nothing to do with determining ownership of an asset where the owner's identity was not previously established.  Or do you really believe that knowing a doctor/lawyer (or someone willing to pass themself off as one) is good grounds for taking ownership of things where no identity of the owner had previously been declared?

If your GA was working fine why would you conceivably believe deleting the code from GA before disabling authentication on the server was sensible?

I mean if you wanted to change your password on a site and the FAQ said "repeatedly hitting yourself in the head with a brick can help you forget the old password" I'd still have some doubts over whether forgetting the old password was actually a useful objective to aim for and would, at a minimum, ensure I changed the password to a new one (that I could remember) before smacking myself in the head with a lump of masonry.

Similarly, if a site told me how to delete my GA details I'd disable the need for those details before actually making any effort to delete them.

Don't read too much into my (lack of) comment.  I expressed my concerns about it fairly clearly in the thread - you can judge for yourself the extent to which those were addressed.

It's definitely a better prospect than most - unfortunately that doesn't, of itself, say anything particularly useful.  I can honestly say that I haven't yet decided whether or not I'll be buying into the IPO - but put simply if it looks heavily over-subscribed I'll buy with the intent of flipping, if it doesn't look oversubscribed then I'll pass (but reconsider if it gets near selling out with heavy momentum).  My decision to act like that has next to nothing to do with its quality - that's just what I do on most IPOs. You can, however, conclude that I don't believe it to be obviously profitable enough (or likely to sustain price well enough before it reaches dividend point - which matters more) to justify buying now with the intention to hold.  

Put simply, if I want some I think I can get them at same price or cheaper later on - so no need to pay the cost of tied up capital.  If my view on that changes (due to order deptht) then I'll buy - but flip as same principle will apply just at a higher price (i.e. I believe I can sell shortly after IPO and buy back later for the same or less).  Shares around here just don't hold price if there's no obvious growth/dividends - I may not agree with the reasoning why people think that way but it would still be stupid to ignore the reality that they do.

Right - and if you ask a question about something involving "world" in the name be aware that outside the US it tends to imply that more than one country participate in it.

Ah cool - good to know I was missing something.

Maybe someone can explain how we know the payment came from Slush and how we know it was generated from mining hardware owned by them?  In my drunken state I'm clearly missing how this is better proof than having a miner published on a pool's list of miners with the name 'Labcoin'.

I mean I could show a BTC address that regularly receives 5-7 BTC payments (I send them so I know it exists).  What mining power does that prove it has (it has none that I am aware of but does receive other transactions)?

Obviously if the address listed is getting 3 BTC every 10 minutes (and those transfers are directly from freshly mined coins) then it strongly suggests it has a bit over 10% of network hashing power but I sense that isn't the case.

EDIT: Let me clarify my point.  Right now my fund (LTC-ATF) has 77.209 BTC on Bitfunder.  If one of my investors asked me to prove it (which they are perfectly entitled to do) I'd screen-share, log in to Bitfunder and show them a balance of 77.209 BTC.  I would NOT show them a BTC address that had an incoming transaction of 77.209 BTC and ask them to accept that was from Bitfunder.  Do you see where I'm coming from?  There's a HUGE difference between proving you have X BTC and proving you have/had X BTC at a specific place/from a specific source.  Doubt anyone thinks Labcoin people couldn't RAISE 3 BTC (anyone with a net connection should be able to come up with 3 BTC in a few hours) - issue is whether they actually mined it.  And I'm not grasping where the proof is that it was mined - I'd happily stipulate that I agree they can control an address with 3 BTC in.

Sounds like some US thing - I only bet on actual sports.

Pretty simple - why 'invest' in things where the price movement is random when there's plenty of things where the price movement is obvious.  In fairness there's been a relative dearth of things where upward movement was obvious recently - which is where I tend towards "wait" rather than towards "guess" or "gamble".

LOL - waste of good alcohol content to use it up on them

First time I've ever seen something where investors were required to cast votes they weren't entitled to in order to give themselves the right to vote (amongst other things).  If investors don't have the right to vote the contract should be inviolate.

I always tell the truth.

Just when sober I'm more careful about which truths I tell.  And, of course, truth isn't actually an absolute thing.

Yep - that was my point.  I don't doubt that the person in the avatar exists and is someone MP has contact with.  I have no way of knowing whether or not that person is responsible for any/all posts.  And I can't see how Ytterbium could 'know' that she wasn't.

So there's no way I could personally claim knowledge either way - not can I see how Ytterbium could claim to actually 'know' anything.

Going to have to decline on that as ranting about them could cost me money.  Ask for the rant in a week's time and I'll deliver.

Heh, don't think there's anythign I say when drunk that I won't stand by when sober.  Just the wording and (especially) the spelling is worse.

Plus, when drunk, I have an annoying habit of giving away free advice that (when sober) I know I should charge people to hear.