...
you think a hedge fund investing in major bitcoin startups is a bad idea? and since when should investors have barriers to entry?
...
Seedcoin is not a "hedge fund." It is a d00d on the intertubes asking you for coin, which he will invest in his "other" startups -- a tired old shell game. He has no track record, no skin in the game, IRL a "hedge fund" like that would cause plenty of laughter and fingerpointing. Wake up, bro. P.S: You are the one who claimed that Seedcoin (one and now two) removes the [nonexistent] barrier to entry. In Bitcoin securities, there's no barrier to remove -- invest your lunch money, you financial mogul you  |
|
|
|
@minerpart: Return to your containment thread. Or Dr.Benway  @minerpart:  "The road to mental health is just around the corner!" ~Dr.Evans |
|
|
|
thats not the fault of the securities exchanges that the value has gone down, what your forgetting is the fragile nature of bitcoin investors looking for a quick profit; when they find there first dividend isn't coming for a year or they are not getting 100% returns straight away they jump ship. this doesn't mean the exchange is less credible or the businesses themselves are not viable.
there is no barrier to entry? your joking me right? havelock is one of the, if not thee strictest exchange to get listed on and is known for its extensive due diligence.
im done replying to your FUD. your inexperience and lack of understanding of the securities world is laughable.
By "no barrier to entry," I'm talking about investors -- the idiots that would buy Seedcoin. I have no idea what the vetting process is for Havelock, but just in the last month two securities packed up and said kthxbi! (see COG). |
|
|
|
|
Of course it does. Vetting ridiculous "businesses" with absurdly high self-valuations is the hallmark of scammy exchanges.
Re. Seedcoin II: Seedcoin I is failing, with advertised projects backing out. Is it investing the freed coin into this new promising startup, Seedcoin II? Hell no. Why?
So much fail here...
Finally, why would anyone with half a brain hand coin over to a "fund manager" with secure bitcoin exchanges, like Havelock, around? There's no barrier to entry whatsoever -- feel free to invest lunch money.
And finally finally, re. "no ideas about stocks or securities outside the bitcoin world.": This is Bitcoin, brah. The shit that passes for "securities" here wouldn't pass for toilet paper IRL.
|
|
|
|
...
i don't know all of the securities on havelock as well as i should, but i know PETA trades above IPO price.
... Lol, of all the securities being traded on Havelock, PETA is THE ONLY ONE trading above IPO. Pays to familiarize yourself with the topic you weigh in on inb4 "but ASICMINER!": That was listed on Havelock @4.5, currently trading @0.50 your missing the point. as i said, serious businesses don't turn over huge profits within their first six months. havelock offers the best security for investors and an environment where long-term business's can grow. if you want mickymouse securities then head over to cryptostocks. See edit above: "Your claim that "very few serious business propositions will see a high return in their first six months" is absolutely irrelevant. Serious businesses may not show profit for years, but their share price doesn't plummet within weeks of IPO." Further, Havelock is in teh panic mode. Its own share price has plummeted since it has missed its profit projections by an order of magnitude. It's listing junk securities like Seedcoin II -- a startup raising money to invest in startups. <==Not shitting you. Seedcoin I, of course, is trading below IPO  |
|
|
|
...
i don't know all of the securities on havelock as well as i should, but i know PETA trades above IPO price.
... Lol, of all the securities being traded on Havelock, PETA is THE ONLY ONE trading above IPO. Give it time. Pays to familiarize yourself with the topic you weigh in on inb4 "but ASICMINER!": That was listed on Havelock @4.5, currently trading @0.50 If Havelock was a casino, the owner would have been lynched by now. Your claim that "very few serious business propositions will see a high return in their first six months" is absolutely irrelevant. Serious businesses may not show profit for years, but their share price doesn't plummet within weeks of IPO. |
|
|
|
MP? MinerPart? Mircea Popescu? MP?!1!1! Coincidence? I think not Notlambchop - Mirceau Popescu's THIRD visit to this thread.
... "Just the place for a Snark! I have said it THRICE: What I tell you three times is true." @fourhundredapm: Nah, he's in an abusive relationship with an elderly gent named Ken. |
|
|
|
@minerpart: "The road to mental health is just around the corner!" ~Dr.Evans |
|
|
|
|
So a fashion-forward Satan-worshiper and illiterate OP [presumably raised by wolves] decide to raise a few bits and start UK's only exchange and casino.
What could possibly go wrong?
|
|
|
|
...
If anyone holds a substantial amount, subject to background history I may their shares in their name. However their is a limit to how many I can transfer (banking).
...
Please feel free to ask any questions
- William Dunne
What made you drop out of school at such a tender age, OP? |
|
|
|
|
Just to make sure I'm not missing anything:
1. You have no money or product, and are looking for funding from Seedcoin II.
2. Seedcoin II has no money or product, and is looking for funding from the Bitcoin community me.
Overlooking the fact that both you and Seedcoin II have awesome ideas, is above fairly accurate?
|
|
|
|
One more question: What is the point of this thread? You are not offering (or are not at liberty to offer) any info, and you are not seeking direct investors -- opting instead for funding through Seedcoin II... Seedcoin II, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, is simultaneously looking for funding itself. Looking for funding so that it, in turn, could fund you  Rube Goldberg would be proud. |
|
|
|
Oh Jesus, don't tell me this guy ain't 100% legit!  |
|
|
|
...I'm not able to name names at this time as we are working through the agreements, and I am bound by confidentiality agreements... Gotcha. NDA  Bro, you got to step up your game, the NDA bit has been burnt down ages ago. We need something fresh. |
|
|
|
|
Potential slogans:
Seedcoin II -- A fund so nice we've offered it twice!TM
Seedcoin II -- So we heard you like investing in startups, so we started a startup to invest in startups!TM
On a more serious note: Seedcoin II seems like a promising startup, did Seedcoin I invest in it?
|
|
|
|
You're not really valuing this at $7.75 Million on $0.00 sales, are you?
... TL;DR: The offering price for the shares in this offering was arbitrarily determined by our management. ... ... In your SEC filing, you claimed that the minimum amount accepted from any outside investor is $5,000 USD. Does Counterparty even have a mechanism in place to enforce this? Can it enforce the restriction to sell only to 'accredited investors'? ... TL;DR: Full details had obviously not been worked out. ... Regarding 'accredited investors': This is really a 2 way street. Investors are responsible for their decisions and Issuers are responsible for theirs. ... No. It is not a 2-way street. You have no mechanism in place to limit your offering to qualified investors, and thus are running afoul of relevant regulations. Also, why are you using beta software as the shareholder ledger for your company?
... TL;DR: Yeah. ... Use of Proceeds We will use the proceeds for general working capital, administrative expenses and for the implementation of our business growth strategy. However, there is no guarantee that we will receive any proceeds in connection with this offering. This is just a blanket statement stating that even though we are trying to raise funds we may not be able to raise funds for this offering. Sorry for any confusion. *Misread "social engagement" (wtf is that? a party?) as "social engineering."
This is another word for community involvement or anything socially related. For example: - Integrating chat functions through Facebook or Twitter within each product auction listing. - Reward systems involving sharing and posting via social networks I like that "a party?". That would be great. Gotcha. Gotta keep up with the neologisms. So you're basically putting these things up. right?  +trollbox? Sounds solid. |
|
|
|
...this is not a paradox...
It seems you now agree the argument I used to explain the paradox wasn't "begging the question." The statement that's a paradox is the one I labelled "Paradox: if you remove the speculative component from bitcoin's price, its value increases." The definition of a paradox is "a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true." The apparent contradiction is the idea that the speculative component is actually negative; i.e., if you remove it the value would increase. Yet this might be true. I think perhaps you think this shows that the price must increase. It doesn't. It just shows that at our current level of bitcoin adoption the price probably can't remain constant (and non-zero). It holds in the case of lambcoins too--the value quickly plummets! Of course "but the value would increase due to its useful properties..." is begging the question. You posit that the value would increase, and that's the same thing you find paradoxical. Come on. When you quote the definition of "paradox" (it's ok to admit you're quoting wikip, kids won't laugh), you skip the crucial bit: "Most logical paradoxes are known to be invalid arguments but are still valuable in promoting critical thinking." In other words, older kids won't see a paradox where you would. Your Lambcoin valuation is also sloppy, unless you're suggesting Lambcoin's value can plummet indefinitely (as in "into negative numbers"). As Lambcoin's creator, I can tell you that its value is currently quite stable at zero, and is unlikely to go any lower without creating anti-coin. |
|
|
|
...I assumed he took care of any other loose ends. ... I was not aware the situation was so tense. ...
Bro, it's pretty tense...  |
|
|
|
|
1. You start with an assumption that "1 BTC will forever buy the same basket of goods." <==price remains same
2. You go on to say "Aggregate demand for bitcoin would increase due to its useful properties as a store of value ... this can't happen without also increasing the price" <==price rises
1. Assume that 1 Lambcoin will forever buy the same basket of goods. <==Lambcoins are Bitcoin clones.
2. Aggregate demand for the Lambcoin would increase due to its useful properties as a store of value. But of course this can't happen without also increasing the price, and thus the paradox.
Yes, the two statements are mutually exclusive, (2) contradicts (1), but this is not a paradox, simply a pair of mutually contradictory premises.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
