If you read the provided description of the term IPVO, it makes clear that this is not attempt to do what Burnside is doing. His use of "virtual" is in a context of a "game" in his text. This is not a game, it is virtual-currency-fueled finance. The difference here is that, from a legal standpoint, the IPVO, while similar in ways to an IPO, is quite different.
To date, the bitcoin securities market has attempted to use the term IPO creatively by redefining it to suit its needs, but the term IPO, is meant to imply more than simply selling your company publicly. "IPO" is an accepted term that implies an offering that will be made public on traditional stock exchanges at Wall St and the like, which is obviously not the case here.
Being that most bitcoin IP(V)Os are things like fundraising, crowdfunding, profit-shares, informal entities, and partially unregulated, a unique term must be adopted to differentiate so as not to confuse those familiar with traditional IPOs.
As Danny mentions, there is trailblazing happening here. Both of our legal teams are hard at work establishing ourselves as best as possible within the current framework of guidance. As I have mentioned before, there will be more news on these developments soon, and there will be even more changes to come.
I do hope it works out, it will be great for bitcoin if this venture can succeed. Thanks for your response, but it addresses why I was curious to hear your opinion on the question, it doesn't answer the actual question... The virtual entity is to ensure current American SEC regulations are not being broken by investors from America.
Why are you sure that calling it virtual will definitely exempt you from all SEC regulations? ...which as other have commented, appears to not be the case. Cryptocyprus has also avoided the question, even though several people have now raised it. If it this IPVO wasn't for a financial service I wouldn't be pushing this, but they want to start a bitcoin bank! What other important legal or regulatory things do they believe are ensured that aren't? It's something of a red flag, especially when it's probably only a matter of time before the wrong civil servants in some place or another start looking for excuses to close them down. |
|
|
|
What are the real reasons behind the 'virtual entity' nonsense when you could be selling the real shares in the real legal entity ?
The virtual entity is to ensure current American SEC regulations are not being broken by investors from America. Why are you sure that calling it virtual will definitely exempt you from all SEC regulations? This IP"V"O absolutely is under the purview of the SEC if this caters to US citizens. Any claim to the contrary is misinformed or a lie. I'd be particularly interested to hear TAT's opinion on this, after his many condemnations of Burnside for doing something very similar. Edit: added quote below from the BTC-TC thread: Your perspective is short-sighted, in my opinion.
Yes, it is easier to think and behave how you recommend, but that does not make it healthy or right or smart or necessary.
This is not a question of shoddy legalese, it is calling a duck a spade for the preservation of the duck trade.
He can afford KYC hoops, and there are services that can help with that. Why assume he has made any effort at all in that regard?
No one expects a bitcoin financial service effort to be totally SEC-proof at this point, but the SEC does indeed value good faith efforts to operate within the law. They do not, however, respect deception and the contrary.
Yes, I can acknowledge that legal developments take time, I know this first hand. But I do not see how asserting a false position is wise, nor how a legal team could recommend such.
|
|
|
|
What are the real reasons behind the 'virtual entity' nonsense when you could be selling the real shares in the real legal entity ?
The virtual entity is to ensure current American SEC regulations are not being broken by investors from America. Why are you sure that calling it virtual will definitely exempt you from all SEC regulations? |
|
|
|
Maybe the graphs should be disabled by default. I regularly check the stocks on my iPad and it takes ages to load the graphs and the whole page becomes unusable during that time. Logging in every time also isn't an option.
There should be a button the page you have to press to show the graph, unless turned on by default in settings. Logging in shouldn't be necessary to turn it off, and going to settings shouldn't be necessary to see one again. How hard can it be to implement this? It would probably significantly increase BitFunder's profits. The lag has getting worse and making it close to unusable now, as it has to reload every time you trade something as well as every time you see a new screen. Even if someone doesn't want to see the graphs ever, requiring you to be logged in just to look at the prices is a security issue. |
|
|
|
It's more fun to watch when you took all your profits already and watch the thing crash like it's going to because the swede is full of it.
Hmm... so since leaving the newbie area, all your posts have been Labcoin FUD.  |
|
|
|
Calm down, nothing happened. It seemed amusing to us.
Not cool. Don't play with people's money. I dont think you realize what forum you're on. 90 % of the posts here are blatant manipulation attempts. There are different kinds of blatant manipulation. The people who manipulate by cherry-picking truths & putting spin on them tend to be more effective than the ones who downright lie, and if there are people on both sides of the argument doing that effectively, the result can be even a good contribution to the debate. Just making crap up on the other hand deserves an ignore, and if 99% did it then 99% should be on ignore. |
|
|
|
I think is obvious now that it will take a while for the prices to recover. You can just spend your money on other stock and come back when they prices start to go back up. People are just moving their money into other alternatives that are more profitable in short term bases.
Not sure if wrong thread, or someone programmed their trading bot to post randomly from FUD text tables. |
|
|
|
Stuck where right we were again!  What do we have to DO to get this blasted thing past 0.004!?! Change the name to AlbcoinMining?!? Back down. Dumping now is idiotic. I'll just say that flat out. You held til they said they were on schedule and then dumped? What kind of thought process is behind that series of decisions? Who dumped? I didn't dump. Overcommitted right now if anything. |
|
|
|
Stuck where right we were again! What do we have to DO to get this blasted thing past 0.004!?! Change the name to AlbcoinMining?!? |
|
|
|
It's not going to break 0.004. Everyone lining up to give their shares away under that price, again.
Looks like people are going to dump back down to 0.0032 Yup, You can't expect a big rally on that "news". Nothing to see here, everyone is waiting till the hashing starts. Sure. Deployment & hashing date going as planned, pics coming along with attention via CNN and Bloomberg interviews, 200-300 TH this year, nothing to see here, move along.  |
|
|
|
Anyone else noticed how precise is the timing with the updated every time share price stars droping ? Every. Time. So unlike some others they actually give a fuck about the shareholders and defending the share price rather than taking a vow of silence once they've got their IPO money. How awful for us! |
|
|
|
What say you?
I say there could be watertight video evidence with signed statements in blood from you, John K, Satoshi and all 15 judges of the International Court of Justice, and BitBet will still find a way to resolve it as "No". |
|
|
|
Whatever the reason, the big sell has taken lots of the support out of the equation and started a slide. Nothing suddenly wrong with the stock, just supply/demand pressure.
Might be worth picking up a few more cheap shares at the bottom...
You've already missed the bottom. That big sell off caused the price to drop to 0.002988 BTC about 1 hour and 40 minutes ago. The price has risen steadily since then and is back up to 0.003350 BTC. There hasn't been many people selling since then. the only ppl who would do the selling at the price point of 0.0032-0.0033 are the one that bought the shares at the price of 0.0029-0.0031 Well guys, the top ask is now 0.003252 so we'll see. I bought all mine below 0.0029, so I'm happy either way.  I think it will slide if there's no news, but over days rather than hours. |
|
|
|
|
Whatever the reason, the big sell has taken lots of the support out of the equation and started a slide. Nothing suddenly wrong with the stock, just supply/demand pressure.
Might be worth picking up a few more cheap shares at the bottom...
|
|
|
|
I updated the Google authenticator app before seeing the warning on Bitfunder...
For the moment I'm still logged on the website, but unfortunately I can't disable 2-FA authentication without providing a valid code (which I can't, since the app update erased my existing data).
What should I do?
Try this... How to recover:
I recovered from this mistake. This should work on both jailbroken and unmodified iPhones, and will not loose your jailbreak if done correctly (point 5):
1) Swear at Google (OK, most of you have probably already done that)
2) Delete the Google Authenticator app from your Phone.
3) If iTunes sync automatically with your phone, you probably want to turn that off first. Also, if you sync over WiFi it may already be too late - I really do not know.
4) Connect your phone to iTunes. Enable the panel on the left. It shows "LIBRARY", "STORE", "SHARED" etc and also the name of the phone. On newer iTunes it is disabled by default, choose View / Show Sidebar.
5) Right-click on your iPhone, choose "Restore from Backup". DO NOT use the normal restore button on the main window, as that will also restore the firmware and wipe and restore everythin (it will take ages resyncing, and any jailbreak will be gone).
6) After restoring, iTunes will resync your phone and reinstall Google Authenticator. If you did not sync or backup since upgrading the app, the old version INCLUDING KEYS will be back.
7) If jailbroken, install Update Hider and hide the update to GA (I have not done this yet myself, but it should work).
|
|
|
|
|
+1. This is very real, and will cause huge amounts of trouble to bitcoiners. Shout it from the rooftops.
There are many people reporting it on online. Bitfunder has also added it to their webpage: "Error: Google has updated their authenticator app. DO NO UPGRADE THE APP. Many users have reported that the upgrade has erased their stored codes needed to login. If you wish to update you will need to disable 2-factor on your account first so you can re-activate it after the app update."
If you're reading this thread in the next couple of days, please bump it if it hasn't been in the last hour or so.
|
|
|
|
(shiny)
Is that Dealcoin holding everyone's money, or shareholders holding Dealcoin shares?  16:24:33 ThickAsThieves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283075.msg3073127#msg307312716:24:38 ozbot: [HAVELOCK] Dealcoin Official Thread 16:25:34 mircea_popescu: lol 16:26:05 mircea_popescu: hahaha 16:26:10 mircea_popescu: did you make that 2nd one ? 16:26:35 ThickAsThieves: 2nd one? 16:26:45 ThickAsThieves: i just googled gem unicorn 16:26:48 ThickAsThieves: and picked 16:27:02 mircea_popescu: a kk 16:27:07 mircea_popescu: it's great. 16:27:56 ThickAsThieves: theyll probably think i'm saying i bought all the dealco |
|
|
|
For a start-up bitcoin company that isn't a great best-case-scenario maximum return.  Well you also have to factor in the potential appreciation of the stock But why would the price appreciate much? Potential buyers will compare Dealcoin's return with those being returned by other securities. I'm not sure why this 1% monthly maximum was set. Why couldn't dividends rise when profits do? I wish Dealcoin the best of luck and hope it works out for them, but I don't see the risk/reward being worth it for an investor as the rules have been laid out. |
|
|
|
I hardly find a valuation @ $150k 'aggressive' these days specially for digital enterprises an $150k valuation is not what investors would consider 'aggressive'if you also consider the fact that I am giving away 40% of the company in the first listing with a 1% guaranteed monthly dividend…
Is that guaranteed dividend also the maximum dividend? Apparently so from your prospectus: Dividend Policy
DEALCO will pay a 1% fixed monthly dividend in accordance with the exchange rules and practices based on the 0.01 BTC listing price (0.0001 BTC/month/unit). The dividend will begin on October 31st, 2013 and continue for a period of two years.
Prior to the end of the two year period, Dealcoin will inform DEALCO unit holders of the new dividend policy to be defined at the time.
For a start-up bitcoin company that isn't a great best-case-scenario maximum return. |
|
|
|
|
Any opinions on the ever growing number of pass-through shares? What effect might it have on price? Are any just added to the ask walls by the PT operators, or is it all from shares owners transferring more shares in than out?
For example...
ASICMINER-PT btct shares outstanding:
27,979 @ 9 August
30,377 @ 1 September
G.ASICMINER-PT BitFunder shares issued:
13,525 @ 9 August
14,151 @ 1 September
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
