Money is fungible. What does it matter if you get $800 from him or $800 from someone else or $800 from him indirectly through someone else. Obviously you are willing to settle for less than $1250 otherwise you wouldn't be offering it for sale. The problem with shakaru buying it would be that it would be really unfair to the rest of his creditors. If shakaru somehow gets hold of $800 it should go directly to the fund for a fair repayment to all creditors, not just to buy one person out. The 2nd quote explains the 1st. While money is in fact fungible and no it doesn't matter where the money comes from etc, this entire arrangement is predicated on the agreement that all of shakaru's money goes into the fund to repay creditors. Therefore, if he has money to buy back his own debt on this market he has defrauded the repay-creditors fund by the same amount. |
|
|
|
|
This thread is high comedy. Hope I didn't jinx it.
|
|
|
|
Did you know you can go create another random PGP key and continue Did you know you can go create another LLC and continue after going bankrupt with your previous one? That's what I thought. |
|
|
|
|
Well it's fixed now whatever it was.
|
|
|
|
|
None of this is showing up on the charts, strange...
|
|
|
|
he didnt want to do motion, and thought he had 70% of the shares in RSM Add to that the "I will lock this thread and only discuss the matter on my shitty venue which nobody uses but at least I can edit what people say if I feel like it" attitude and it sums up pretty much to what bulanula said. |
|
|
|
|
More investment? Are you from like the future?
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of wasting my time explaining the obvious to the willfully ignorant:
A. The present value of an uncertain future asset is equal to the product of the future value and the chance of all the contingencies actually falling in place the right way. So, if you have 10 BTC in your wallet, that's 10 BTC in your wallet. If you have 11 BTC worth of mining gear that's 90% secure you actually have LESS than 10 BTC in your wallet, you have about 9.9. If you have 50 or 50 000 BTC worth of imaginary mining gear that's 0% secure you have in fact... 0 btc. So your boasts that you have "increased profits before even starting operations" are only making you look ignorant. At best ignorant, otherwise they show you up for a fraud.
B. The conflict of interest is that situation where the same party represents groups or people with divergent interests. In this case, you represent both the investors in this supposed mining venture/fraud and your friend who makes and sells some vague undocumented miner. If you take the shareholder's money (it's not YOUR money by any means) and give it to your friend you've committed what's known as criminal conversion.
The investors didn't put up money so that you can buy your friend's offerings (are you making a commission from him on the sale, btw?). They put it up to buy gpu's. Then you wanted to change the plan, and did so with their approval. Now you want to change it again, without their approval, and for some deal that they can't verify but "is better" because you say so?
Things don't work that way. The only, and I do mean the ONLY honorable way to proceed here is for you to apologize for your ignorance (which is the best case scenario, you're simply ignorant), put up bids on GLBSE for the entire float at the price it was offered (plus a tip, sure, if you feel particularly humble). Let people who want out unwind for a week or two after which take whatever's left and buy this new mystery miner.
Anything else, and I do mean ANYTHING else is simply fraud. Pick your course.
|
|
|
|
I'll buy them all off you at 3.1BTC next week hopefully then you have still profited on my back. Talk is cheap. Put your bid order in at original price for the total of shares outstanding and you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you don't. |
|
|
|
I only used the GLBSE to crowed source to make my plan faster and planned on buying back all listed shares not really planning on a stock market floated company forever otherwise I wouldn't have made much from keeping just 50 shares from 1900 issued? There was no vote, I made the decision. The person or people who undercut the IPO after the price was raised have admitted that they were doing so to make profit, not because of any loss of faith (though there were a few who sold for less than the original price.) Only 5 shares of the IPO sold at 1 BTC, then the large chunk of shares was put up for .99-ad nauseam. After a few people bought these shares, buying dried up. I postulate that this was due to the fact that the money was no longer going towards investment in the company but to someone who was being very clever and playing the system. Ahh how these fantasy CEOs start sounding alike when they gaze deep inside and are struck by the sudden realisation that the "shareholders" are left on this Earth as God's gift of cash to them personally and no more. |
|
|
|
Seems like they are just trying to slow down the company's IPO at their own cost No, seems like part of your original investors have no confidence in you and are trying to cut loose and get out even at a loss. This may or may not be due to your obvious conflict of interest you detailed above. If you want to be your mate's sales rep that's fine and dandy, but force selling his product to a public company is south of the equator so to speak. |
|
|
|
|
Wow seems Bitcoinica is making the 43k back from the users...
|
|
|
|
No idea where people found this: It's only been the MPOE address for ~8 months now, I'd guess pretty much everyone knows it by now. Anyway: this is closed now. Something like 7 people tried, a total of 4 got it (notme, kakobrekla, brendio, finway). I'd say the results clearly prove the user unfriendliness point. We'll see if Mr. P can be talked into doing something about it. |
|
|
|
You don't take my meaning. Suppose you have a 100btc ETF, with a 5 shares portfolio all trading around .1. Suppose somebody drops another half-restaurant meal into your fund (like 15BTC). You go buy shares in your 5 symbols, all now trading .16. If god forbid the other person in that restaurant also drops half a meal into your fund (ANOTHER 15BTC) you are now confronted with either taking all 5 shares to .25+ or else what exactly? Not selling? the price that is the correct one at that precise moment! Therein lies the problem: on GLBSE you can have either correct price or precise moment. You can't have both, you have to pick one. |
|
|
|
So, unfortunately, the characters "ETF" must stay in both of those. I would like to point out that, in neither, does it actually use the words "exchange traded fund". Seems like a minor issue in any case. It's a fund, it's traded on the exchange, that's that. Not the first semantic innovation to follow in the wake of bitcoin revolution. |
|
|
|
|
Alternatively, let people put enough fees in their transactions so that it becomes economically unfeasible to ignore them. Why fix problems that do not exist?
|
|
|
|
|
I meant something more along the lines that your model embeds some assumptions about the market (such as, for instance, that if I want to spend 50 bitcoins on a stock I will be able to find meaningful bids). As far as I can see these assumptions do not hold. Take the MPOE.EFT bid side :
1,000 shares - BTC 0.000006
287 shares - BTC 0.09
25 shares - BTC 0.091
25 shares - BTC 0.095
So you can't practically sell more than 30BTC's worth. The same is the case for buying, too, which means that there's no practical way to run a "real" (aka, perfectly transparent) ETF, they'll all be managed to a certain degree anyway.
Add to this the difficulties due to the relative market segregation (irl a bank holds shares from practically ALL issuers in one way or another - nobody is in that position on GLBSE) and you've got a mess on your hands.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
