The "shareholders" who listened to your delirium have lost ~99.8% of their "investment."

The shareholders who ignored you and listened to crumbs got out with a profit.

Who better served the "shareholders"?

^And yet I still try.  A wit once pointed out that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.*  This subforum is a long and sordid record of fraud, theft, and plain old-fashioned failure, but success?  Folks always point to just one example:  early days of ASICMINER (which, for the past year, has been declining like so):



If we're to take the above-mentioned wit seriously, this forum is a hotbed of lunacy.  From my past experience in these forae, I have concluded that relying on anything that whiffs of reason and logic results in outbursts of rabid rage from the locals.  Not my desired effect.

Wat do?

I'm currently experimenting with my own, home-baked version Absurdism:  Hiding the message in a wholesome blend of bombastic rhetoric spiced with aged netspeak and served in a bed of decorative gifs, with a side-order of infantalia.  Allows the advanced/terminal cases to discount the whole thing as "trolling" (less anger), while those in the earlier stages of dementia are still able to benefit (like a dog swallowing bitter medicine wrapped in bologna).  It's a long shot...

---

*Albert Einstein is credited.

If you can't invest without giving your money to strangers, you should not invest.  This, again, should be obvious.
I share with you that factoid in the same spirit as this one: If you can't fly by jumping off tall buildings, don't do it.

While flying is a thing, and though it seems unjust that some can do it while others can't, what you're proposing here (jumping off tall buildings and hoping for the best) prob'ly won't make you happy.

Nor are you likely to learn flying by repeatedly throwing yourself off buildings and other tall places, even though this subforum is dedicated to just that.  I know baby birds seem to do it that way, but you're not a baby bird.  
Sorry to be such a downer.

*Also: "...my portfolio (in line with diversifying via risk-reward)" <==a collection of used scratch tickets is not a portfolio, nor is buying Scratch Crazy along with Winar is U "diversifying."  

 ~

You should not give your bitcoin to strangers.  No more than you should give cash to every passerby who promises to make you rich.
Let's pursue this analogy a bit further:
You insist on handing over your cash to strangers in the street.  When I suggest this might not be the wisest course of action, you demand proof of you being scammed.  Because "the onus is on [me]."

No.  The burden of proof is not on me.  If this is not obvious to you on its face (and it's sadly apparent that it is not), there's nothing I can add to change your mind.

To be honest, I never thought I could.  You are not here to understand but to defend your patently absurd investings.  I can't convince you any more than I could convince a lunatic that he's not "a little tea pot, short and stout."

So I have to content myself with second best--using this thread as an edifying cautionary tale for our younger [thus educable] Bitcoiners.
With you and SamboNZ being the sad tale's unfortunate protagonists.
A tale made all the more poignant once this "investment" [inevitably and quite predictably] implodes.

  ~Happy investing

You wish to create a "thoughtful atmosphere" in a thread where investment aficionados line up for the inevitable surprise buttsecs?  Listen to yourself.
Justifying your shrewd investings with "I can afford to lose it" is as irresponsible and shortsighted as tossing half-eaten burritos on our floor because you're "not hungry and can afford it."  It makes a mess, breeds rats, and our normal neighbors start avoiding us.

I'm tired of intrepid investors tossing coin they "can afford to lose" at every half-witted con that's been burnt down IRL ages ago, and, when said "investment" [predictably] hits the fan, forgetting their pseudo-libertarian pretensions and running to the first government TLA that'll listen to their gripes...
...surprisingly bringing negative press and tighter regulation to Bitcoin.

  ~Happy investing

Sufferers such as yourself are convinced that there is plenty of evidence to support their delusions.  That's why we use powerful, modern chemicals to treat you guys.

How about dangerously, pathologically deluded?

^If you feel I've made any accusations, kindly point one out.  My comment is based purely on statistics and probabilities.  For every scheme of this type that made money for Bitcointalk "investors" (i can't think of any, but I suspect some may exist), I'll offer you handfulls of cases that ended in fail and aids.

Of course, this particular example may be unique, and you may be that very special snowflake who beats the odds.  In which case, continue "investing."

To show that I hold no bad feelings towards you for your rude, erroneous and utterly unsubstantiated accusations, I will extend you the same offer previously made to noobthegreat.
In a few months, you too will receive a condolences gif and a virtual shoulder to sob on.

  ~Happy investing

What led you to believe that I have discovered any?  I simply pointed out that sending money to strangers through intertubes typically results in copious amounts of tears and snot being spilled.  
~Happy investing

What you seem to be forgetting is that most scams and all ponzis pay out great at the beginning, that's how they attract savvy investing enthusiasts such as yourself.
In a few months, I'll drop you a condolences gif and offer you a virtual shoulder to sob on.

Some have reached that conclusion sooner than others...

Thank you, I think I'm getting it.  The "collateral" in question is actually a part of a separate deal you have made with Spondoolies, unrelated to this IPO.  Not sure why Spondoolies chose to present your pre-order payment as "collateral," but probably makes little difference--it's becoming clear this IPO won't sell out.

Sincere thanks for your prompt replies.

Take it from a reluctant bear, we're omnivores.  From berries to honey to fish to an occasional camper (but only as a special treat).
~Mishka

@omehenk :

Hi, I'm a bit confused, probably the language.  Can you confirm that you have not given Spondoolies $100K (or more) as collateral?
I am not questioning your integrity in any way--you have not given me any reason to do so.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Edit:  Could you possibly also interpret this for me?

@c2m:  Sorry if I'm belaboring this, it seems I'm not making my point clearly.  I'll try again.  Here is a numbered list.  Please point to the line[s ] (if any) you feel is inaccurate.  Once we agree on the premises, it will be easier for me to present the conclusions.

1. Spondoolies is a supplier of miners.
2. Spondoolies is also supplying (brokering?) a hosting solution--through an entity known to us only as cowboyminer.
3. The only information offered regarding the entity known as cowboyminer is that said entity has been vetted by Spondoolies.
4. Spondoolies, while both providing and vouching for cowboyminer, goes on to add that it is holding "hefty collateral" from cowboyminer (in the amount of "over a hundred thousand [dollars].")
  4a.  which begs the question:  To what degree could Spondoolies be held liable if cowboyminer vanishes with the miners/fails to adhere to [whatever] agreement?
5. The entity known to us as cowboyminer is also not a party to this IPO, but a provider of hosting chosen by Spondoolies.
6. To assure that cowboymining adheres to the previously arrived at agreement, Spondoolies [presumably] requested "hefty collateral" from cowboymining, which cowboymining has provided in the sum of "over a hundred thousand [dollars]."
7. Spondoolies stated that the collateral was taken to insure "smooth execution of this IPO."
  7a.  How would the $100K, which presumably would be returned to cowboyminer after the IPO (of which cowboyminer is not a part), assure cowboyminer's compliance?

Spondoolies explicitly stated that it does not endorse this IPO, but merely selling 35 miners and (what appears to be brokering) the hosting.  Spondoolies is either a party to this IPO (in which case the lack of endorsement is somewhat peculiar), or it is not, in which case why the "hefty collateral"?

Further, it's difficult to see how $100k collateral from cowboyminer would assure his adherence to the hosting agreement. According to Spondoolies, the collateral was taken to insure the smooth execution of this IPO.  From this it is reasonable to conclude that it will be released to cowboyminer once the IPO is over.  At that point, cowboyminer is yet to show compliance which the collateral is [presumably] meant to assure.
Could you, perhaps, explain the reasoning behind this collateral?

You [and] zumzero [is/are] the only one[ s] who still don't get it.  Of course you're [both] Active Mining investor[ s], so that partially explains such rabid aversion to logic.  
Go in peace.  Both of you

<tinfoil hat>Are you zumzero?</tinfoil hat>

The only thing left is ...couldn't afford the listing fee?