Don't sell yourself short, hdbuck.  I consider correcting you my noblesse oblige.  It's not even that trying.

Lol, *I* invested in AM?  And on Havelock?


P.S:  If you're happy with turning 4.5 BTC into 0.25 BTC, I doubt we have much in common.  I'm happy making money, you're happy losing it. Spectacularly.
Vive la difference, I suppose. 

Is AM doing particularly badly?  I mean, is the rate of loss any higher average?
Just to be clear, if I was here "every time AM [was] not doing good," I would have been here regularly, since July.
Not last July, but the July before that, July 2013. (see Fig. 1)
As much as I'd like to dedicate that much time to your "investment," I'm afraid Friedcat is not the only titan of industry, and ur not the only financial magnate vying 4 my attention


                                                                Fig 1.

Edit:  I trimmed off the portion of the chart which Havelock has tacked on below the zero line (presumably to make the whole thing look a bit less embarrassing).  I, personally, do not think that it is possible for the value of AM shares to be negative.
Though who knows, Bitcoin Securities...  Revolutionary, disruptive technology...

Lol no.  I haven't met or even had a conversation with the guy, but I enjoy reading his/MPOE_PR's stuff.  Don't agree with some of it, but that makes little difference--would be fun to hang with him.
Re. "writing style":
My cat can't spot stylistic differences between Dr. Seuss and Comte de Lautreamont.  Doesn't mean he's not a bright cat, but he's wrong--there are some

Not sure if upset.  A bit disheartened that Bitcoin has attracted so much scam, but it is what it is--an unfortunate fact that must be dealt with.  Let me clear up some misunderstandings.

I'm not the "sh[r]ill voice of a tsunami warning."  I'm only trying to drive home something which should be as obvious as "if you hit your thumb with a five-pound sledge, you're gonna have a bad time."  Yeah, it is a bit unsettling (for me) to watch people hammering their thumbs, expecting different results "because Bitcoin."  But it's not even a knee-jerk response--reflexively stopping a fellow-human from hurting itself--that motivates me.

I'm not even a nice guy.  I'm not concerned about teh n00bs, but rather how their goofy self-mutilation affects Bitcoin as a whole, and how this public perception affects the value of my investment.  I don't even particularly care if stupid n00bs lose money, as long as they do it discretely, quietly, not center-stage under the spotlight.

I'm not a moralfag, I'm looking out for myself.  Just like a guy quietly moving serious weight wouldn't let a punkass crack dealer set up on his stoop to push bunk.  Hint: it's not because he's a nice guy worried about crackheads not getting their due bang for the buck.

Remember NeoBee?  Not to rub it in, but ...fuckit, I will.
This is how Joe Sixpack and aspiring scammers see us:  "Idiots who'll send pseudonymous money to any Anon, to invest in absurd, unworkable schemes guaranteed to lose money even if Anon happened by chance to be honest."  Like that.

Remember Active Mining?  Remember MintSpare?  Remember HASH (most recent)?
Do this:  Pull up any one of my "shrill" warnings, find one that's been shown wrong, and rub it in my face.

And I have nothing against Friedcat.  He seems to be a bright, techy guy.  But what does he have to do with the shares bought and sold on Havelock now?  They're completely out of his hands, have been since the end of the IPO.

TL;DR: Enlightened self-interest.
If some noobs get schooled in the process?  Gravy!

I have no idea either, but I suspect it's something along the lines of "he's Mircea Popescu; Eduardo deCastro; FED; [insert bogeyman here]."

Remedial Economics
When [normal] people invest dollars, Bitcoin, or shekels (from here on: Unit_of_account), they do it to get more Unit_of_account, not less.
When you invest 10 Unit_of_account and lose 9, you have [dramatic pause] lost 9 Unit_of_account, and are left with only 1.  The colloquialism for that is "losing money," regardless of the changing value of Unit_of_account.

If a [normal] person expects the value of his particular Unit_of_account to go up faster than the value of his "investment," he [another forced dramatic pause] DOES NOT INVEST.  Because such an investment would lose him money, and that's called, in the highly specialized and technical jargon of economics, "FUCKIN' STUPID."

Having dealt with you previously, I don't really expect you to grasp the underlying logic, so simply do this: If you think your "very rare bird" is going to appreciate faster than the shit business you plan to "invest in," DO NOT INVEST.  Because that's what not_stupid_people do.
Imitate not_stupid_people--they're smarter than you.


You might as well ask me how my investment in vacuuming_my_house, brushing_my_teeth, and wiping_my_sphincter_after_getting_off_the_toilet is going for me.  Tedious, doesn't win me ribbons, but shit gotta be done.
While it make me no money directly, it keeps my Bitcoin from turning to shit.

I didn't quite say it was Havelock's fault--just that it's stupid to try making money there.
There's no evidence of such a thing ever having been done, making the possibility of it *ever* happening speculative at best.*

But now that you bring the responsibility thing up, I'll say it:  Yes, it is partially Havelock's fault.

Havelock's fault for pretending to screen their offerings.
Havelock's fault for making assurances like "we hold all the money in escrow until it's needs by the issuer" (presumably doling it out like a parent does his child's allowance), and then failing to act on their promise (see Mintspare thread).
Havelock's fault for their own grossly overvalued IPO [HIF], which flopped just like all the rest of the crap listed there.

There's plenty more, but TL;DR:  I didn't claim it's Havelock's fault, but, now that you mention it, it kinda is.

---

*I'm talking about investing as opposed to trading.  It's possible to make money trading, and the fact that the charts have some upswings interrupting their negative slope is proof enough that some people, at some point, have bought lower than they sold (profited).

4realz?  Gotta be a few professionals here who are intentionally losing massive amounts of money.  Like U, 4 instance.


Never take advice from Anons.  Trading is not a cooperative sport.  For every good trade, there must be a matching *bad* trade.


"Dumb money" is what *ALL* AM shareholders are.  At least all who bought shares on Havelock.  Because:

There may be a few smart traders, but no smart investors.


...and FFS, never invest on an exchange where not a single offering is trading above its initial listing price.  That sort of thing doesn't just make you "dumb money," it makes you certifiably insane.


See (1).


wut
Someone offered you commissions?  But you can't type up a grammatically correct post.  You have no understanding of the very rudiments of business, like "contracts are there to be followed, not broken," "if you're a multimillion getting funding on some interwebs forum, spend five minutes a day posting to keep the marks calm," and "once the shares are sold, the issuer doesn't lose a penny if the shareholders dump their shares for nothing.  Conversely, the issuer doesn't profit if the share price skyrockets.  Not unless the issuer plans to sell more shares."

Stop typing nonsense, inept pimping is the worst kind of FUD.  It's frickin' embarrassing to read through, too.

Is that Dread Pirate Roberts?

FTFY.  Heady times ahead!

Didn't Cryptx make the loan to himself, and took shares in lieu of payment (originally to be repaid over time from mined BTC)?  

A question which Havelock refuses to answer.  The corollaries have also been asked and remain unanswered:

1.  What conditions must be met for the issuer to be considered in breach of contract?
2.  How long may the issuer be (1) for the escrowed funds to be forfeited by the issuer?
3.  What will happen in case of (2)?
4.  How long does Havelock have to respond after (1) becomes a boolean 1?
5.  What recourse is available to the investors if Havelock fails to act?

All good, simple questions which must be answered before "Don't worry, ur monyz b held by us" becomes meaningful.

You're talking about Velocity_of_money.  It's a can of worms...

Five Weeks(tm)

How long a timeframe would you consider sufficient to alter your trading strategy?  And what prompted your choice of "3 months"?  The exchange rate has been shittening for over 8 months...

Current highest bid ___฿0.00090000, ~1/25th of the IPO price
Last trade___________฿0.00209996, ~1/10th of the IPO price
Benny and Brannny respond:

Yep.  The bit where Joshua blew a trumpet and Jericho's walls came down.

And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord.  And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day

Hurray!