The other problem is you will get into legal trouble if you constantly claim person x y or z is a scammer. It will happen eventually.

It was me, and I changed my vote to yes because you published the financial statement. I am also a shareholder.

But there are a few things I don't understand. You've ordered a Kiln and to my knowledge you've sold several mugs (and maybe other things). I don't see any of those listed on your financial statement. My main problem with this is you have stated clearly you will "...be publishing our monthly statements in forum and follow typical bookkeeping rules." Well, thank you for publishing a financial statement, but I don't understand why you haven't followed typical bookkeeping rules. You haven't listed any of the company's assets in your financial report. In fact it appears as if the only assets of the company are litecoins, and the only operation of your company is to trade it's own security.

I'm not saying you didn't order a kiln or that you didn't sell any mugs. I'm just asking when you will prepare a proper financial report as you've said you will, which includes all the company's assets including sales and the kiln. I need this in order to calculate a value for your company. Also, I admit it, I have a certain morbid fascination with how you plan to value your company now that you have purchased hardware which is already worth less than what you paid for it (a kiln). It would be humorous to see it listed at purchase price, even though that is what I'd expect anyone to do in any normal situation.

Also, I'm just curious, you said "Equipment will be insured against theft or destruction by fire or similar incident." Have you insured the studio against fire and/or theft yet? Again, I am asking because I don't see the insurance cost in the financial statements.

I originally wanted to absolve Matthew's bet but a few of my shareholders have stated that is not my right. So. I've created clean address which everyone can check to see that Matthew has made payments to me for NYAN's bet.

Our bet was for 750 BTC.

All money paid to this address will find their way to NYAN shareholders.

I'm sorry matthew but I don't have a choice in this, it's my duty to post this information for my shareholders :<

[19XedYRGLY4FBKpRwDK48481HpvXtRoMA4]

Any and all money sent to this address will satisfy the requirement of Matthew N. Wright to NYAN.

FWIW I think that if he makes payments the scammer tag should be removed.

Dear LTC-GLOBAL moderators and shareholders;

I'm truly thankful of the five votes I have received allowing me to list BMF, and the shareholder motion which states my shareholders want me to continue running BMF (although not many have voted).

However I fear it is too late for BMF. I will be honest my dreams for BMF have been dashed. For weeks I have been mentally prepared to just let go (and shut down the company). So thank you for the five votes, I have asked burnside to unlock the asset, but I will continue to shut down in an orderly fashion over the next few weeks.

The only real benefit unlocking will have is it will allow me to buy back shares in addition to paying a dividend. Some people may prefer to sell their shares at a small loss to get their money back "today" versus two weeks from now. However please keep in mind most of the dividends have already been paid and short of several letters from shareholders asking me to continue I will shut down.

Management guidance: As at Jan 22nd, 2013, I will guarantee a minimum current value for BMF shares at 0.1BTC. However this value is guaranteed to decline as we continue to pay out dividends. I also suggest you don't panic sell. Please check the Dividends & Trades window to see what we have scheduled for payout, and keep in mind there is at least 100 BTC of unscheduled dividends which we will get from auction and from sale of securities over the next week or two. Once again thank you to all my shareholders. Please contact me if you have any concerns and I will do my best to resolve them.

Thanks, I tried to use miicard but they don't support Asia. I have a mobile number just not one in an area they support :/

I'll keep looking.

Confirmed.


Bidding on JTME is closed, unless someone is feeling very generous! Thanks silverbox.

No online wallet is safe. I run a wallet service as well (hotwallet.ca) and I am paranoid that one day it will be hacked, so I put up a shut down notice and warned users not to deposit any money unless it is for a temporary purpose.

The profit model I had set up was a few bitcoin games (dragon dice) and I was planning on moving to some sort of fee-based model, like 0.1% on all deposits. But there's very little money to be made. It would take around 1,000 BTC of deposits and reasonable time spend on the games before I could even begin to justify hosting fees. That's the reality of running a wallet. It's not profitable unless you're in the top two (and torwallet probably was not in the top 2). Since they had no other profit model I am guessing they decided to scam since they're completely anonymous.

Anyway.... since you know their hosting provider, if you can demonstrate loss you can get their address. The ISP has a legal obligation to reveal their address so they can be served. But you have to go through a lawyer and it will cost at least a few hundred dollars just for that.

All orders have now been shipped!


REMAINING:
28 x 1/2 oz First Majestic Business Strike Rounds (2012)

Quote is 2.05 BTC/oz, and free shipping anywhere in the world!

Yes, it was a devil's advocate type post, not serious. It's to point out some situation like the above with ATF and ATF.B, and split off a discussion from the "my voting criteria" thread.

=Identity Escrow======
An LTC-GLOBAL moderator has voted NO, but offered the remedy of Identity Escrow. I am more than willing to provide this. I was fully ID-verified on the GLBSE. The trick becomes, who can hold my identity in escrow. Secondly, as an escrow service, this entity would hold for me what I want out of the deal, the power to list my security.

Well it seems burnside is the obvious choice here. However, if any LTC-GLOBAL moderator wants to know who I am, as I have said before I haven't gone to any great length to hide who I am, I've published several books and am/was very active in the internet Go community. My identity is no great secret. I also sell things online (gold, silver) so dozens of people have my address. I don't mind talking with anyone over the phone.

So sure, identity escrow. I'll send a note to burnside. But I will ask that whoever is asking for this to contact me privately. If you're going to make an offer like this, I'd like to be able to hold you to your promise of a YES vote.

The recent thread on what criteria a LTC-GLOBAL moderator should use got me thinking.

What if a group of LTC-GLOBAL moderators self-organized and formed a company that provided contractual advice services to people trying to get listed on BTC-TC and/or LTC-GLOBAL? It would, essentially, be a small group of LTC-GLOBAL moderators who, for a small fee, would analyze a contract and come up with a list of (standard) criteria that they would want to see before they would approve the security. Of course, such a group of people would not be the only moderators capable of clearing a security. Any asset issuer would be free to try to list without the services of said fictional group.

But for those interested in paying a brireasonable fee, it would provide a one-stop-shop for not only getting approved, but also making sure your contract fixed up and beautified, and made acceptable to the community.

And possibly providing other services such as big bro ongoing oversight or accounting and financial reports.

Of course, buying such a service would not guarantee that you would get cleared for listing. Members would be free to vote as they see fit. I'm sure their paycheque from the company wouldn't influence their decision at all.

I have no intention or desire to set something like this up, but I have set up something similar for GLBSE actually. I'm just wondering what burnside (and other LTC-GLOBAL) moderators think of the idea.

Interesting ideas all around.

Chiming in, I basically vote yes on everything unless I detect some sort of funnybusiness going on.
- Is the form filled out completely and accurately?
- Are there any promises in the contract which the asset issuer has failed to keep?
- Is there enough information being published about the issue so that I can establish a value? (the most important factor)
- Is there any form of accountability (no anonymous issues please)

That's pretty much it. Of course each asset is evaluated individually but those are the basic things I look for. Also,
- I don't like startups. I like established businesses looking to list.
- I don't approve personal loans or anything directly tying US dollars or the stock market to bitcoins.
- I start to get highly suspicious of people who list more than two or three assets, because I know from first hand experience how difficult it can be to manage more than one issue (believe it).

I also want to say.. as outspoken as I am..  I don't think this voting system is going to go over very well after more moderators come on board. First, moderators are community members. That works out great right now but the fact is, community members are not necessarily financial experts. There is a notion that moderators are there to approve securities based on their personal opinion of business viability, their trust of the asset issuer, or any other subjective factor. That is not a good idea. Do the LTC-GLOBAL moderators take on any sort of liability for approving a scammy asset? They should, if it's their job to filter out scams.

I believe moderators should enforce the principle that investors must be given sufficient information to decide for themselves whether or not they want to invest in a company. As it stands, the system is starting to work opposite from how it was intended. We have extensive, extremely well-done contracts which have received several down-votes. For example the LTC-ATF contract. LTC-ATF is one of the best contracts I've ever seen and yet it has eight NO votes. What's even worse is that there are no comments and there seems to be no way for Deprived to try and fix his security. But actually there is nothing wrong with his security at all. It seems as if people are just voting him down because they don't like him personally. That is really, really bad.

Then on the other hand you see multiple assets where six or more sections have been left blank and there is no contact info other than an e-mail. And those securities have received ten upvotes and no NOs. This doesn't make sense. It shows the basic intent behind the system might have placed it's trust in the wrong area. But I do agree it's the best system among all the exchanges so far. I would not want to remove it, only improve it. But how.

Well, I'd like to see something a lot closer to what Ian proposed. Ian actually had an amazing idea. Just list everything and have a rating system from the moderators.  That would be a lot closer to how it works in the real world. Honestly, personal trust should never be an issue. Look what happened with KRAKEN. The most trusted issuer in the entire community intentionally listed an asset designed to steal investors money. So trust and personal feelings are never a good indicator of whether or not something should list.

I'd like to caution against ever confiscating people's assets because they break the ToS. That would be extremely bad. It could even happen accidentally. For example BTC-TRADING-PT. The issuer is assumed to control two accounts, both of which have 10 or more shares of LTC-GLOBAL. Or anyone who votes as an owner of BTC-TRADING-PT. Like me. I own some BTC-TRADING-PT. Have I broken the TOS by voting both with my own shares and as an owner of BTC-TRADING-PT? What if I own or a third fund (like LTC-ATF) and invest in LTC-GLOBAL? It seems crazy to state you will confiscate the assets of a fund because it turns out that people end up getting more than one "vote". Given that one share in BTC-TRADING-PT costs 0.15 BTC, and that you could probably swing the vote easily with a few hundred shares, well it seems you can almost buy a second vote for the same price that it costs to buy 10 shares of LTC-GLOBAL.

Secondly, I know for a fact there were some account managers who represented certain investors who prefer to remain anonymous to the GLBSE. I've seen this a couple of times. I am going to speculate that (at least) those two people are doing the same thing on LTC-GLOBAL right now, and operate not only their own account but a customer account as well. What would happen if you found out about those people and they didn't want to reveal the identity of their customers?

What if I hired someone to represent my interests? That's an external legal obligation and I can't see how you could morally prevent someone from doing that. What if I ran a full passthrough on a second exchange and operated multiple accounts in order to give investors votes? It seems that with the current ToS you are over-extending your jurisdiction into some pretty strange areas.

Also what about bribes? I'll be honest. If someone gave me 200 BTC I would find it personally difficult not to vote for their security. Unlikely, but, I can assure you that if there aren't any LTC-GLOBAL moderators selling their votes now, there WILL be once we get another 30 or 40 moderators into the system. And why not? If an asset issuer is serious about listing, why not charge a fee for an "evaluation and advice session"? Moderators could advertise that they are willing to critique someone's contract for a small fee. After all, it takes a long time to go over a detailed contract with eight or nine sections to it. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? Or is there.

For punishment, why not just ban people from voting? If it's proven conclusively that someone is trying to game the system, just penalize them from voting for say a month or two. That seems reasonable and fair. But I must voice my opinion strongly that someone's money or assets never be confiscated, that does not sit well with me at all. I don't think that should never be an option. Please try to find another way around that.

I know the current system is not perfect but I am just airing a few ideas I've had for your consideration. In the end I think you will find a good way though all of this burnside, my faith is with you now.

[/quote]

SILVER is a lot like the companies like you mentioned, as well as BTC-TC funds like Carnth's BTC-GOLD and John Galt's GOLD fund. The difference between SILVER, and something like BTC-GOLD (besides the fact we deal in silver) is that we sell deep-in-the-money covered call options to pay for secure storage. As a result, we can sell shares cheaper on a per-ounce basis and there are essentially no other fees. With other funds, I'm not sure how they are storing their silver. Our silver will be guaranteed by the vault we hire. The downside is that if there's a sudden violent upswing in the price of silver, we will lose our cash position. The plus side is, that won't affect investors in the fund who will still be able to exchange their shares for physical silver ounces. So no, no one is really doing what we're doing specifically, although there are plenty of places to buy silver or gold in the community now, CoinAbul being one of the best places. I plan to try and support the communuity by buying from them (if their prices remain fair, of course I haven't looked).

The proposed launch date is anytime, but assuming we get the votes by the end of this month (we still need two votes on BTC-TC), we will be able to get the silver and start selling shares around the second week of February. Before then I could only sell maybe 100 shares or so against the silver we have right now.

EDIT: I have been advised to clarify that we will not begin trading until I've finished closing down my other companies. This is true; I will be closing down my other companies before starting up this one. Even if approved today, SILVER will not begin trading until approximately two weeks after I shut down BMF, CPA and NYAN.

yeah it is :/

Just sold the rest of the 1oz coins and 8 more of the 1/2 oz coins. Let me ship all three of these packages and I'll provide an update tomorrow on what's left and the current quote. Thanks for buying my silver, everyone!

Ten of the one ounce silver coins have been paid for and will be shipped today. There are 28 oz. of silver remaining for purchase:

10 x 1oz coins
46 x 1/2oz coins