Importing Shares to Havelock Investment
There is no fee to import shares. There is no minimum quantity for importing shares.

How to Import Direct Shares:
1. Send an e-mail to fnnirvana@gmail.com & TAT Investments at tat.investments@gmail.com with the following message:

”Friedcat, please transfer (X) of my shares to the TAT Investments account at 1rHfXj4AwH9zymwwJuXnbXLiDbAE9V1uz -- tat.investments@gmail.com”

Also include the following info:
- Your current ASICMINER share-holding wallet address & e-mail address
- The quantity of shares you wish to transfer

2. If the e-mail address you have on file with ASICMINER is different than the one you use for your Havelock account, you MUST send an e-mail from the e-mail address you have registered with Havelock confirming this import request. If this is the case, please provided a dated, signed message from the host wallet to confirm ownership.
3. After confirmation from Friedcat is received, the AM1 shares will be added to your account within 48 hours or less.

NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for delays or errors in transfer confirmations by ASICMINER staff.
Please follow these instructions carefully to avoid problems.

Did you even read the latest posts from Labcoin and TheSwede?

Its not a scam, syphalis is just pissed that he lost coin and didn't get in on the cheap shares.

TAT.ASICMINER shares cannot be converted to whole shares.

It would be nice if crypto-exchanges used standard terminology.  Allocated shares vs issued shares.

Go to https://btct.co/security/BASIC-MINING

Click on the "Motions" tab. It currently is still the last motion (at the very top).

Yes, that's what you keep saying.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding at work here. Simply having more shares does not entitle one to advanced knowledge of the inner workings of a company, save in the case of companies that have board members or an advisory board. Company officers that provide such information are indeed benefiting one group of virtual shareholders and putting another group at a disadvantage, but there's no way to police this. The transaction that you've referenced with my company occurred at a share price of .61 and every investor that held shares at that time benefited as they were afforded an opportunity to sell their shares at a higher price and their shares then received higher dividends. As this transaction was necessarily preceded by a public shareholder vote due to bASIC-Mining's unchanging contract everything was done transparently in the light of day.

Cheers.

Hi ventolin. Burnside has never made any claims that he's going to police the exchange that I've seen. Doing so would be a full time job+ in and of itself and would open up a whole new can of worms. Instead he offers a minimal layer of protection by preventing issuers from altering their own contracts and ensuring that shareholder votes are conducted fairly. In addition he's made it very clear in every conceivable way that virtual investors are responsible for their own actions. Exchange moderators are responsible for rating assets and ensuring that issuers follow their contracts. Those that do not do so tend to draw the ire of exchange moderators who vote those virtual assets down over time.

I understand your concerns about shareholder dilution and I share them, but the only additional shares that have ever been issued by bASIC-Mining were issued for a special equipment purchase that was authorized by majority shareholder vote. All shareholders, regardless of the size of their holdings, have benefited from said purchase in the form of increased dividends and opportunities to sell holdings at higher prices. If there's a more fair way to conduct these procedures then I'm sure we'd all like to move in that direction.

There's any number of ways in which large shareholders of any asset can attempt to manipulate share prices and all virtual investors must remain vigilant and protect their own interests regardless of the size of their investment.

Cheers.

The situation isn't quite as bad as you think.

For example on BASIC-MINING the extra increase in shares was done by issuing new shares in return for a BFL mini-rig.  It was definitely a good deal for existing investors (and a horrible one for the guy with the mini-rig - as he took shares valued right at the top of a bubble) and was approved by shareholder vote that passed with over 80% YES votes.

Active-mining is really a pass-through to the main issue on Bitfunder (as it as launched on Bitfunder without there ever being a shareholder vote to convert it to a dual listing).  The maximum shares were set before a change in the structure of the company and should really be reduced to the current actual maximum.  Unfortunately AMC has been pretty terrible all along when it comes to clearly explaining, reporting and sticking to a plan on sale of shares.

I certainly agree with you that in a lot of BTC companies there is significant opportunity for a controlling interest to act against the interests of smaller investors (something which is illegal in nearly all countries).  But the most blatant ways of doing that don't involve issuing new shares at all.  And remember that what are reported as shares on securities aren't actually shares for the majority of securities : most are things like bonds or units where there doesn't need to be control of issuance/redemption provided the issuer doesn't do things which would break their obligation to investors (things such as buying back units above NAV/U or selling units below NAV/U in funds which have the ability to constantly issue new units).

The thing that most needs to be stamped out in my view is securities changing the contract mid-IPO.  Especially where they set targets that must be reached then remove them when it becomes apparent they won't be hit.  If a contract needs a change mid-IPO then the IPO should be aborted, all funds returned, the security delisted and moderator votes removed.  Then when they've changed the contract they should go through the approval process again.

A contract needs to be something that's fundamentally set in stone BEFORE shares are sold - not something that's changed randomly as the IPO progresses (or fails to progress).

Very valid concerns.  An issuer cannot issue new shares nor change their contract on their own.  I have to do it.

On bonds, mining contracts, futures, funds, passthru's, and managed portfolios I adjust share counts by request of the issuer.  On revenue shares and 'stocks' I only do it if a motion has passed.

That said, there are definitely ways majority holders and issuers can game the system, just like in the real world.  Don't put you coins into the site unless you have read up on an asset and you are confident it is something you want to be involved with.

Cheers.

There's nothing stopping anyone from acquiring 51% of an asset that's offered for sale on the open market, but a shareholder vote to issue new shares or make any other contractual change can only be initiated by the asset issuer. If you don't feel you can trust any particular asset issuer then the rest is moot, simply don't invest in that person's securities.

Cheers.

bASIC-Mining was originally set up that way by me last year to avoid requesting the issuance of additional shares if needed in the future. At the time it was not at all unusual to do it that way. Not one share has ever left the asset issuer account without a shareholder vote and majority approval. Not. One. Ever. Not even for a millisecond. This is easily checked by anyone at any time by simply checking the number of shares outstanding.

Edit: Asset issuers cannot change their contracts on btct.co w/o site admin approval, which is only granted upon a successful shareholder vote.

You need to wait 360 seconds (6min) between posts, or after logging in.
You are a new member here, welcome.