Something I'd like to see is the ability to amend a contract, meaning a place to put contract updates under the "stockholder agreement" section on https://btct.co/security/COGNITIVE#tab5This would allow for everyone to see the most recent way a given company operates in one place, aside from this forum or the said company's web site. Thanks for continually improving the exchange burnside  |
|
|
|
So someone just sold their cognitive shares at prices above .23 BTC. Maybe I am assuming too much but is it because now they are looking at a better deal on your contracts for delivery?
I see the logic in that, but I personally think that'd be an unwise move, as the contracts for delivery idea is not yet set in stone. |
|
|
|
|
Avalon is shipping and we need to get on board.
After the current motions pass on Friday, I'm planning on raising two more:
1) As requested by a shareholder, a motion that lets me spend Cognitive's funds on mining hardware freely. I will, of course, continue to operate in Cognitive's best interest as I have with funds in the past. The main advantage is not having to wait two weeks for a motion to pass, because sometimes ASIC ordering windows are much shorter than that!
2) The sale of "Contracts for Delivery", meaning the sale of an asset in order to purchase mining hardware that will mature into a Cognitive share when said hardware arrives and is hashing. These would be competitively priced, to encourage investments, and would be sold in bulk only. I think 100 for BTC22 would be an extremely good deal for investors, as Cognitive shares trade for 0.3+.
As always, suggestions are appreciated.
Best,
Garrett
|
|
|
|
Sadly, I hate whoring myself out, so it'll never happen.
Good. I'd hate to see you obliterating all professionalism in the exchange. |
|
|
|
If he lost his GPG key, I won't be able to verify that the lists are actually from Nefario...
If it's gone, there's really nothing anybody can do about it. I see two options for you, theymos: 1) Trust that he is sending the accurate list, and do things the classic way and get a handwritten, signature signed contract mailed to you stating that the list is correct. 2) You sit on the coins indefinitely. Sorry if I sound hostile toward you; I realize that James is the one at fault, but it is now your responsibility to take action with the intentions of resolving this mess. |
|
|
|
|
Hey all,
I had a call with James this morning, and he told be he could not communicate with the people holding the bitcoins he owes us, solely because he lost the flash drive with his private (GPG) key on it. I recommended the simple solution of giving the GLBSE trustees (Theymos and ColdHardMetal) the list of those who are owed funds, and trusting that they will treat the data and distribute the funds appropriately. He said "Huh, I hadn't thought of that". Then said that he will send them the lists when he gets home in a few hours. Could he really not think of this stupidly simple answer to this ridiculous problem on his own?
I'm quoting and sending this message to the two that he mentioned on the phone.
Also, he mentioned that he hasn't checked his glbse or doctor.nefario email accounts in over a month, and the forum for even longer.
Hopefully he'll bring himself to resolve this mess once and for all.
--Garrett
|
|
|
|
I solved the referral problem. This is the only/last referral link anyone should know about. pyramining.co <- Active permanently.^^ Brilliant. |
|
|
|
To the bitcoin balance in your wallet, you have your own private keys.
When you make a transfer to another person, it costs a transaction fee.
Now If I transfer the private key to another computer, and delete it off mine,
the other computer would have the bitcoins and not mine.
Is it possible to create a wallet client, that transfers private keys?
And then states your balance? Wouldn't this in plain theory
avoid all transaction fees?
Basically I would be sending private keys as a transaction,
and he would get the coins.
The problem is that deletion introduces an element of trust. Yup. You can already easily do this with people you trust, although it's not really worth the penny or three you will save  |
|
|
|
Can you still update your BFL order?
How many more bitcoins do you need for an extra Single?
Yes, they have told me I can add to the order. I would add to my personal order though so we would get our hardware sooner, as I am first in line At the current rate of $27 per coin, we need BTC48 for another SC Single. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I did all calculations for 0.5 per share. I've readjusted the passthrough price accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Just a quick request for clarification about the pass-through on LTC-GLobal.
It isn't entirely clear from the description where the backing shares will come from. There were three alternatives:
1. (The one I think you're doing) : You buy the shares on the open market from whoever happens to be selling.
2. You sell shares from treasury at equivalent to the price they're listed at on BTC.CO.
3. You sell treasury shares at the equivalent of market price on BTC.CO.
Numbers 1/2 are both fine - number 3 would be out of order as shares would be being sold to you privately (to operate the pass-through) at a discounted rate without their sale price having been officially lowered.
I'm pretty sure you're doing #1 - so outstanding shares won't increase but price on BTC.CO should rise (probably slightly) due to increased demand.
Sorry for not clarifying my intentions; I'm doing #1. I would by no means abuse my abilities as the asset issuer for the main Cognitive. Just to make everything crystal clear: I will be buying shares on the open market, and it is my responsibility to pay the equivalent dividends. If I underprice passthrough shares, I am the one who eats the difference. In celebration of the passthrough launch and to get things rolling, I put up some passthrough shares at a discounted rate. So snag them up before they're gone  https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/COGNITIVE-PTBest, Garrett |
|
|
|
the bitcoin market.:
 Haha yes. |
|
|
|
Where are you "licensed" to provide those services? Any further details available... business plan, company info, or the like?
Yes please. |
|
|
|
Thanks  what is in the zip file? This pretty picture:  |
|
|
|
Quorum: 40% (because of the rather learge amount of shares that are owned by those who do not check this forum or btc-tc frequently enough to
and again, undeclared shares: removed from the quorum requirement
Pretty sure the second of those statements is unneeded. If there's 1000 shares then a 40% quorum requirement means 400 need to vote for any result to count. If the other 60% do nothing it doesn't matter. You CAN'T remoe them from the quorum requirement (40%/400 votes) as that would give a negative number (-20%/-200 Votes). So wording should be more along the lines of: At least 40% of outstanding shares must register a vote (Yes/No/Abstain) Of those that express an opinion (Yes/No) at least 70% must vote Yes for the motion to pass. Motions will always be worded such that a Yes vote is required to make any change to the contract. Last point is needed otherwise some tricky operator could make a motion to leave the contract the same - and the motion failing would mean it changed So if there were 1000 shares outstanding, 300 voted Yes, 50 voted No, 100 Abstained then: 45% would have voted - so quorum was achieved (at least 40% of shares voted in the motion). 300/350 = 85.7% voted Yes And motion would pass. Had the 100 who abstained done nothign then the motion would fail as only 35% showed any awareness of there being motion. In principle I'm not keen on minority changes to a contract - but with a 2 week period minimum and the fairly low level activity of many investors, what you propose seems a reasonable compromise. I agree with you here. Also, while your way is a better way of wording the motion, it has already been issued, and they mean the same thing so we'll keep it that way. Not sure, what are we voting here: Starting on the 23 February 2013 dividend day, 50% of mining revenue will be allocated to our reserve
fund, which will be used for purchasing new hardware and maintaining old hardware. Due to the significant
cost of mining equipment, a motion will be raised for every purchase of new hardware.
The outcome of the "Voting Method" Motion will determine the calculation method for this motion.
1) idea to allocate 50% of mining revenue to our reserve ? or 2) the need to rise a motion every time Cognitive needs to purchase a new hardware ? 1 - yes, good idea 2) - no, bad idea. Why delay every purchase of new equipment. Imagine, if a real life Co has to ask shareholders every time they need to purchase equipment they use to run their daily business. It make sens, if you like to buy a pair of new skates - stuff, that has NOTHING to do with running a mining business. And even this is never taken to the shareholders meeting, unless those skates cost as much as the yacht. Check out, how this stuff is done in real life business. I agree with you here as well. I will raise another motion that will negate the #2 that you pointed out. I suppose if there is ever an incident where I don't feel confident in using Cognitive's funds, I can still raise a motion and see what other shareholders want to do! |
|
|
|
Is there anyone that owes more than 40% of outstanding shares or at least 2 people with 20%? Also, how will the 500 shares used to cover the expenses be used in the voting?
No and no: the majority shareholder owns less than 20%. Also, those 500 shares are a part of my holdings, so they always vote with what I vote for. In this case, I have voted yes for all the raised motions. |
|
|
|
We just need a set of operating rules that will set a quorum needed for a motion vote to be valid, a timeline for the length the motion is up for voting, and the percentage of the voting shares that need to pass a motion. The higher the quorum the lower the majority is needed.
Ex.
quorum: 60%
motion passes: 51%
voting timeline: 2-3 weeks
undeclared shares: removed the quorum requirement
I highlighted the sentence that I am basing the following on: I believe we should set it up as similarly as possible to the original contract. So here's what I propose: Quorum: 40% (because of the rather learge amount of shares that are owned by those who do not check this forum or btc-tc frequently enough to see that a motion has been set in motion ) Motion passes: 70% Poll duration: 2 week minimum and again, undeclared shares: removed from the quorum requirement I will post a motion where we will change the voting strategy to this. For that motion, we will use the GLBSE style voting, which is calculated by: YES shares divided by total voting shares. I will also raise the motion for offering the forwards contracts, and for the growth fund. How the outcome is calculated for these will depend on the outcome of the motion regarding the outcome of future motions. Now that's a mouthful. In addition to these, I would like to open a Cognitive passthrough on https://www.litecoinglobal.com/ , which is owned and maintained by the same guy as our current exchange. This would allow for an additional gateway for investing in Cognitive, which ultimately leads to higher share prices. If there are no objections to this, I plan on listing the passthrough this weekend. Cheers, Garrett |
|
|
|
The 8619 shares were initially sold when bitcoins were valued at ~$5/BTC. I think the rest were sold during the summer when it was about $7/BTC. It is now +$20/BTC. I also believe that the IPO was priced at 0.55 BTC per share at the IPO. So during the IPO if someone purchased bitcoins to purchase shares of Cognitive they would have bought each share for about $2.75/share. Currently, to buy a share of Cognitive would cost someone $7.27/share with a dividend yield (based on the last trade of 0.339BTC/share) of 20% per year.
That's all correct except the IPO was BTC0.50 Do you know when your ASIC's are coming in?
[you are ordering some, right?]
Yes, Seven BitForce SC Singles are paid for and were ordered quite a while ago. Although they claim they will ship by the end of this month, I have as good of an idea as anyone with regards to BFL's ASIC delivery timeline. They're really good about not communicating their plans clearly :/ |
|
|
|
What if one of the members die? the funds are just lost?
This is precisely why the 2of3 scheme would be optimal. What if theymos died right now? Surely we'd rather distribute therefore minimize our losses. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
