 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
I will likely be participating in the pre-sale. I like the project idea, the team, and importantly the CEO. No one can really know a person by their public profile, but I do get good vibes from Vaughan and he seems quite knowledgeable about the industry and where his product fits in. Looking for a little more detail about a working product. Phillips and Microsoft partnerships are encouraging.
|
|
|
|
|
I may have spoken too soon. I too was able to successfully get in after receiving an updated contract. There was just a delay as they seem to have been rather busy. Good luck to all and hope the project succeeds.
|
|
|
|
|
$350 per ETH later, suddenly I'm not feeling too sour and bent out of shape as before. Why not. Maybe I'll buy in post-exchange sell off when it's worth 400. Good luck to those who luckily got in.
|
|
|
|
My presale contract had been voided for mistakenly exceeding the funding limit and I immediately replied and had been waiting for a response with a new docusign to fill out. But have heard nothing after a prompt reply and multiple emails. Not happy.
That makes two.  I think they need to void it if you need changes after you sign it - a Docusign thing You see, normally I'm all for "you should read and re-read twice. So that's on you.", and maybe it mostly is, but this is what gets me: I receive an email from Marina asking to specify what target amount I'd like to invest. I specify an amount over $50,000 and she replies with a thank you follow up as confirmation. So when the contract arrives I fill out the amount discussed. Only after do I see in small print that the docusign is now specifying the minimum buy in is $50,000 and the maximum is $50,000 as well. Why waste my time and mislead by asking how much I intended to invest if there is literally only one figure one can invest? It just irritated me, and I'd wish I'd caught it in the contract itself at the time. But it also would have been nice to have had that clearly outlined in the first place, because these folks know how much crowdsale participants want to be maximally prepared and ready to go when crowdsales launch. It's little surprises like that which can make a difference. It's technically no "fault" of theirs because truly they owe us nothing, but it still is very annoying. But whatever, I'm still happy with my uninvested ethereum breaking $300 and hope a few of you are too. Maybe there's some none presale available if this 66% of presale cap is truly real. |
|
|
|
|
My presale contract had been voided for mistakenly exceeding the funding limit and I immediately replied and had been waiting for a response with a new docusign to fill out. But have heard nothing after a prompt reply and multiple emails. Not happy.
|
|
|
|
|
Any issue with sending funds direct from an exchange? Don't see that specified.
|
|
|
|
|
Ethereum payment method is not functional
|
|
|
|
|
Will the memorandum release come tonight? It's now 10:25PM Eastern Time. Fingers crossed!
|
|
|
|
We're all looking forward to the memorandum later on today. As always thanks for all the correspondence thus far. I did have another question after discussing some risk elements with a few of my friends/colleagues. Hate to skeptically poke and prod once again, but really need to be clear on this: We saw the minimum lock-in time before liquidation for world investors is 40 days while US investors have a minimum lock-in period of 1 year. So if the fund for any reason started tanking, or alternatively if it took off to a point where we'd feel motivated to trim off some profit and trade the token, we from US soil would be asymmetrically disadvantaged by remaining locked-in while offshore investors can do what they please or could totally bottom the fund out if decided upon exiting en masse? I understand that one upside to minimum lock-in periods is fostering long term oriented investments based on faith in the quality of assets, and avoiding pure profiteering, but need to understand why there is such a skewed difference between US and non-US investors, as well as what your motivations are behind that. Additionally understand that the crowdfunding only consists of $10 million USD while there is another larger $40 million USD accounted for by traditional investors - who are these traditional investors and do they have a lock-in time similar or longer than a year which would tremendously mitigate this risk? That would make a difference. If you can give me a reasonable justification for why this exists I will rest easier with deciding on my prospective investment.
KB
Dear KB - thank you for your interest. The need for the 1 year lock-up for US investors is to do with US securities laws. There is not much we can do around that unfortunately. The investors in the traditional LP fund are locked in for the whole period of the fund, which is not confirmed yet, but could be around 7-10 years in line with other venture capital funds. LPs in the traditional fund do not have liquidity at all unlike token holders. I hope you still like the project and would be interested to invest. Marina, Much appreciated. That's a big confidence booster knowing the LP's are committed long term and represent the majority stake of the fund. I figured that the reason was regulatory in nature. Still like the project. |
|
|
|
|
We're all looking forward to the memorandum later on today. As always thanks for all the correspondence thus far. I did have another question after discussing some risk elements with a few of my friends/colleagues. Hate to skeptically poke and prod once again, but really need to be clear on this: We saw the minimum lock-in time before liquidation for world investors is 40 days while US investors have a minimum lock-in period of 1 year. So if the fund for any reason started tanking, or alternatively if it took off to a point where we'd feel motivated to trim off some profit and trade the token, we from US soil would be asymmetrically disadvantaged by remaining locked-in while offshore investors can do what they please or could totally bottom the fund out if decided upon exiting en masse? I understand that one upside to minimum lock-in periods is fostering long term oriented investments based on faith in the quality of assets, and avoiding pure profiteering, but need to understand why there is such a skewed difference between US and non-US investors, as well as what your motivations are behind that. Additionally understand that the crowdfunding only consists of $10 million USD while there is another larger $40 million USD accounted for by traditional investors - who are these traditional investors and do they have a lock-in time similar or longer than a year which would tremendously mitigate this risk? That would make a difference. If you can give me a reasonable justification for why this exists I will rest easier with deciding on my prospective investment.
KB
|
|
|
|
Thank you for all the correspondence thus far Marina. Let me ask you a reiteration of what I and another user had asked you guys in regard to performance fees specifically:
For comparative purposes, TaaS project claims they will return 50% of fund profits to equity holders quarterly, with a remaining 25% being reinvested into the fund again. Short of stating it directly, they seem to omit what happens to the remaining 25% of fund profits which I could only assume would go to the fund managers. Essentially equivalent to a performance fee unless I am told otherwise.
The rough conclusion I reach from that offering is that you can expect to take away 50% of quarterly gains on your initial investment. Hopefully boosted by whatever accretive gains come from a 25% fund reinvestment. Fine.
Based on your team's offering description, it would sound like you are only exacting the 25% performance fee on profits gained, with the remaining 75% going back to equity holders. Aside from the 2.5% fee on initial equity purchase of course. Would this be correct or am I missing something?
In all, somewhat more appreciative of the fact that your team is at least disclosing performance fees in an up front fashion, instead of users having to request that a missing 25% be spelled out (TaaS). However, we still want a little more light shed on just what happens with the 75% of remaining profit.
Yes I would probably assume the same re 25% of TaaS profits. In our case we only have 25% fee on the profits, and the 75% is reinvested into the fund so token holders get the full benefit of those. To clarify, in addition to that there is 2.5% which is not on initial equity purchase, but rather an annual fee charged to fund's net assets to cover fund's ongoing expenses. Mainstreet for example had 5%. I hope it answers your question? There will definitely more disclosure on that in the offering memorandum coming out on April 3. Yes that absolutely clarifies things. I also realized I'd missed the above response you gave to someone else, noting that the remaining 75% is reinvested to the fund. Makes sense. And thanks for further clarifying on the management fee. So it's a recurring annual expense on net assets. Okay. |
|
|
|
Hello all, We are the ICOrating team. We’re creating the most detailed database of every company that is having or planning to have, an ICO. We’re also developing ratings and analytical reports that will increase potential investors’ awareness of such companies. We’re happy to announce that BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL FUND is now listed on our website. Check it out here http://icorating.com/project/68/Blockchain-Capital-FundWe appreciate any feedback. Please feel free to contact us if there are any additions/corrections you want to insert. We appreciate this one. Thank you for the service! Will read.
Thank you for all the correspondence thus far Marina. Let me ask you a reiteration of what I and another user had asked you guys in regard to performance fees specifically: For comparative purposes, TaaS project claims they will return 50% of fund profits to equity holders quarterly, with a remaining 25% being reinvested into the fund again. Short of stating it directly, they seem to omit what happens to the remaining 25% of fund profits which I could only assume would go to the fund managers. Essentially equivalent to a performance fee unless I am told otherwise. The rough conclusion I reach from that offering is that you can expect to take away 50% of quarterly gains on your initial investment. Hopefully boosted by whatever accretive gains come from a 25% fund reinvestment. Fine. Based on your team's offering description, it would sound like you are only exacting the 25% performance fee on profits gained, with the remaining 75% going back to equity holders. Aside from the 2.5% fee on initial equity purchase of course. Would this be correct or am I missing something? In all, somewhat more appreciative of the fact that your team is at least disclosing performance fees in an up front fashion, instead of users having to request that a missing 25% be spelled out (TaaS). However, we still want a little more light shed on just what happens with the 75% of remaining profit. |
|
|
|
|
Do you anticipate knowing what form(s) of documentation we may submit to you to successfully satisfy requirement of accredited investor status? I.e. Will a US W-2 form suffice? Having read into it there's no uniform standard across various equity issuers. Wondering specifically because I want to ensure there is enough of a time window to gather sufficient documentation to get verified before the sale goes live.
|
|
|
|
|
Additional questions - Could you please explain the management and performance fees and how they work? Are these front-end load or back-end load fees? Is this a cumulative 27.5% (25% + 2.5%) fee docked from all profits made, or are the fee's docked from the initial investment amount made? I also open up the floor to other users to comment on whether this fee amount justifies the unique exposure one would gain to private equity assets like coinbase, etc.
Thanks all.
|
|
|
|
|
So I have a few questions:
Is there a minimum amount of USD we must invest in order to participate in the initial offering?
Is there any formal verification we must go through to prove we are accredited investors prior to the sale going live? How/where can we do that?
Are we eligible to invest if we can just prove we earn more than $200,000 USD annually?
I tried looking for some of these on the website but couldn't find. Maybe you could help clarify.
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly very interesting project. I will be following.
|
|
|
|
|
