You're right, of course. I should have written that as "77% of the weighted vote". Moreover, when the results were shared, CryptX said that "36% of unitholders have voted". It's not clear if they meant 36% of all the individuals holding units, or individuals who collectively represent 36% of all units held.

In any event, that doesn't really clarify the mystery or alleviate my skepticism concerning the truth of those results: large unitholders suffer greater absolute losses in an underperforming security than small unitholders, so unless large unitholders are disproportionately ignorant (and perhaps a case could be made that anyone holding an outsized number of units in something like this is, in fact, disproportionately ignorant), then why would they be more likely to have voted for the nonsensical A2 purchase?

And of course, none of that matters now. Still no word from CryptX on why this round of voting was halted early or where we're going to net out.

I just tried to place my vote for #4 given the lack of better options, but that clicking that link now leads to a page saying "This survey is currently closed. Please contact the author of this survey for further assistance."

The survey is supposed to be open for another 12 hours according to CryptX's email.

Par for the course with them, I suppose; the survey was probably a sham anyhow. I find it hard to believe that 77% of all votes last time were in favor of spending $60,000 on the A2s. The only party that benefited from that decision, like so much around here, was CryptX himself who could start collecting additional hosting fees and probably got a huge kickback from that supposed "purchase" anyhow (if they were even purchased and if they even cost $60k). That was the catalyst for the share price plummeting from 0.03 downward. If the vote "results" this time declare option 1 the winner, then we really have nothing left to do but laugh.

Would someone mind reposting the link to the current stats page for PETA's mined BTC? I can't find it on their site (or in a quick search of this form) and only had the old Eligius link bookmarked. Much thanks.

Wow, the input from Bliss and Havelock on this seems to have ground to as abrupt a halt as the IPO. I wonder how many of the 890 shares sold were bought by insiders just trying to create the illusion of demand, as NotLambchop has suggested. Really hard to understand in light of what's been shared and what's come out, not to mention everything that *wasn't* said in the Prospectus, how anyone would be buying shares at this point. 

Thanks very much for the follow-up, Paul. This does help to clarify things, though there are a few key questions, for me, still not addressed.


This is sensible enough, but the obvious question is whether Round 1 investors are locked in for the long haul or have the opportunity to offload this risk to an interested third-party at some point -- i.e., when will open trading on BLISS shares begin?

Clearly it's against your best interests to initiate open trading too soon as that would undercut the IPO market as the sole source of BLISS shares. On the other hand, without any commitment to there being an open unitholder-to-unitholder exchange for shares, the amount of risk increases substantially for every investor. Personally, I was interested in investing but will not purchase units without a written commitment concerning the start of open trading. I understand that this may classify me as something other than a "true investor" in your business model in that I'm looking for a risk mitigation strategy that doesn't tie me in long-term, but I suspect that you're not going to find nearly enough "true investors" here to pony up 1136 BTC, let alone 9318. If you honestly want to raise that kind of money through retail BTC investors, you need to create a more favorable investing environment and provide more of this detail up front.


What percentage of profits will be paid back as dividends, as opposed to reinvested in the company? This is crucial information but I cannot find it in the Prospectus or any of your posts. It's wonderful on the surface to make this statement about investor payback, but if you'll indulge the skepticism, it's not worth very much without supporting details: you could easily refrain from making any dividend payments to unitholders at all -- both investors and founder shares -- and still benefit immensely from your Founder holdings and all the revenue raised if you go ahead and just reinvest 100% of profits into the business. That is, dividends mean more to us third-party investors than they do to you, so I'm not convinced that the incentives are as aligned as you suggest.

Again, I have to express disappointment that none of this information is contained in the Prospectus and that it's taking interested and supportive (really!) parties here on a forum to try to extract it. You guys clearly have great expertise and this is an exciting venture but the scarcity of information is raising flags for me. A 9318 BTC IPO should warrant more than a PowerPoint deck framed as a Prospectus. I believe that if you were to devote more effort to rigorously documenting and sharing the business details, you'd find more success than the 33BTC you've raised in the first day of trading.

Thanks again and best regards.

Bliss and/or Havelock,

Would you be able to answer the questions that have been raised on this board the past couple days? I realize it's a holiday weekend in the US but considering the IPO opens tomorrow and you're hoping to raise over 9000 BTC of investor coin, it surprises me that you're not actively addressing questions posed by parties clearly interested in your venture.

Thanks and kind regards.

Thanks for the info, Havelock, and for the posts in this forum, Paul. Having read the full Prospectus a few times, I have a few questions  that I'm hoping one or the both of you can clarify:

• Page 9 of the Prospectus outlines the use of funds from each batch of the IPO. Is the full sum raised from each batch to be devoted to its corresponding listed use on page 9, or only a portion thereof? On a related note, how will these actions be funded should one or more of the batches not be sold in full?
• Is the IPO the only source of funding for Bliss operations and coverage for development costs and expenses? More broadly, what is the operations plan and the impact on unit holders if one or more of the batches are not fully sold?
• When will open market trading of BLISS units on Havelock begin?

What does this mean? The Prospectus says something similar but less awkwardly phrased: "Investors of preferred units will be paid in full from net company profits before any dividend distributions to Founder shares." Paid in full for what? They are unitholders buying a stake in the entity, not lenders expecting payback of principal, are they not? Is this proposing some sort of market-based share buyback? Apologies if I'm overlooking something obvious, but I'd appreciate clarification.



Again, I'm not clear on what's being proposed here: by what mechanism would an IPO investor have "recuperated their initial investment"? A unitholder could gain return on that initial investment either by selling (in which case he would no longer be a unitholder) or via dividend payment. So are you saying Founders' shares will not be tradeable until all IPO investors have been paid back the full sum of their initial outlay in dividends? Surely not. Please clarify. Also, what do you mean by "both" IPO investors?

Much thanks in advance for your responses!