I have been doing some thinking, and I have a question.
Let's set up a hypothetical scenario: First, let's assume that this venture is legit (personally, I'm content that it is). Second, let's assume it turns out to be a resounding success and helps BTC really take flight -- and consequently the value of one BTC increases dramatically.
Given that hypothetical scenario: would the potential investor be better off keeping his coins and waiting for the increased value (essentially getting a free ride), or would the potential investor be better off risking his coins buying shares now? In either case, the potential investor wins, but if he simply holds his coins he can win -- but without taking the extra risk.
If this venture is successful, will the rewards from investing exceed the rewards from just holding the coins? Will the exchanges pay fees in USD or BTC, and in what form will the profit be forwarded to the investors?
[Did that make any sense at all?]
It did. At least to my wine-soaked brain.  I don't think there is anything to gain in investing right now. The IPO is barely moving at the moment. The masses are waiting for confirmation that this a legit venture, and many (much to my disappointment) do not consider Havlock alone to be a good, valid source of confirmation. However, if you TRULY believe in this, investing now does help move the IPO, which could cause a cascading effect on the buy up. (How many are on the sidelines?) Me? I invested early. Within the first couple hundred shares. Not because I expect a return 'RIGHT NOA' but because I like to think this Bitcoin idea has a chance, and these guys are out on a limb looking for some support that could change everything. I know, I know, foolish and altruistic, right? Someday I'll get these rose-colored glasses off... I don't think that is entirely foolish at all. In fact I think if Havelock had spoken up earlier the conversation would be different; instead we were left to our own devices and now we find ourselves here. That's no problem though, if they come through (which I think they will), the short delay now will be meaningless and you will have just made the right bet that much sooner. They are offering a huge service to the community, could game change things. This is the real life BTC Global people. Not some vaporware mamzy pamzy NDA wannabe Yea the ROI might not be dream status but less has been had for more and this, like I said, is big. IMO there is billions in bitcoin banking. Not to mention I came across some other info about them in my sleuthing that I will not publish and have instructed them to take down that indicates to me they are who they say they are and are [at least to an extent] doing what they say they are doing. |
|
|
|
|
I spoke to a few of the served entities tonight, and I know a few of them aren't even operational yet. This is clearly an attempt to start a dialogue.
I am however worried for the likes of BitInstant because I believe they have been operating in NY without a license. I may be wrong about that. Otherwise people should have nothing to fret over.
|
|
|
|
Based on the valuation the Financial data is necessary if Crypto Financial wishes to send the full prospectus to Korbman or JohnK who can verify this data it would calm down the chaos a fair bit and allow us to determine the risks associated of the investment regarding financial capital.
I don't have personal relationships with either of them, perhaps someone who does could send them a PM and ask nicely? |
|
|
|
I don't see the reasoning for needing customer service / tech support for a startup like this. Lets call it what it is.. a startup. With the amount of volume they are going to have in the beginning there is no reason to be paying people to sit there doing nothing. a team of 2-3 can probably handle this for the first little bit in their spare time most likely. If they cannot and business is actually BOOMing so much then again if they had that kind of capital already funded.. why do they require another 3m?
Valuation for a startup of 10+Million plus is outrageous. sorry.
An idea is just 1% of a business, not 99%.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and defend Crypto on the CS front. Eb0la, while I respect your opinion, as you do this for a living, I'm sure you recognize that IF this takes off, it will take less then a month for it to explode. These services are DESPERATELY needed, and I imagine that there are many many customers who are lying dormant waiting for such an entity. If that is the case you can be sure people will be banging on their door to no end when the time comes that they do open. I'd much rather a extra-support scenario then a another BitInstant-esque fiasco. No? Am I looking at this the wrong way? |
|
|
|
|
Okay, anyone who PMs you will first need to be approved by the community, so only trust who you see agreed upon in this thread. Otherwise someone could go phishing for your info.
|
|
|
|
I almost considered considering this as a good investment, but then i reconsidered.
Lol, comedy gold. |
|
|
|
I guess it depends on how pessimistic you are, but I don't think Metaneural was a scam. At least not to begin with.
There's no way to really know for sure.
Someone said this earlier, so I will repeat the gist of my first post: hiding your identity and building an entirely fabricated team as a front to your operation is hugely suspicious. I can think of very few legitimate use cases for this (e.g. the country you host from does not allow for these types of businesses, etc...) and even then it is questionable. In this case he(she) is clearly a US-based resident and the only way an operation like this could justify this behavior is if they were trying to bypass current AML laws, which in the context of Bitcoin would be show stopper. Fly by night operations don't last here in the US. And to think a US-based bank would service their needs. LOL The fact that it has is closed down is yet another indicator--pessimism has nothing to do with it. Metaneural hasn't been tainted the same way BitEnsure was. They would close that down too if it got bad press in major publications/relevant forums. |
|
|
|
I fail to grasp how you imagine implementing some sort of p2p exchange attempt is going to resolve or even allow limiting users by geographical accident. That's because I gave no real substantive details. edit: on second thought i may be making too many presumptions with my analysis. i dont know how easy/hard this would be to do in reality, so take what i have said with a grain of salt.
So if you don't know, then why are you talking? Lol, thank you for the thoughtful post. I edited at the end because I realized my words wouldn't hold weight. Again, they were just musings. Trying to put words on the page see if I can begin formulating substance from an idea. You make good points I won't bother getting dirty over each statement because you are right for the ones that count. If you don't want to believe in the possibility of a p2p exchange that is certainly fine with me, I won't stop you. Especially after reading this: MP doesn't think "outside the box". MP tells you where the box you should be thinking in is. If you fail to follow that you lose, and if you don't believe so go ahead and convince yourself. The entire forum pretty much consists of the life stories of people who verified this point for their own needs so far. |
|
|
|
Nice business plan...38 pages later and I've yet to learn your name or background. The only important information in the entire plan...e.g. where you talk about your management, organization, and financial plans for your company...is completely "REDACTED". And don't bother with starting an AMA on Reddit. The questions you'll get there will the be same as what's here. Given you're heavily resistant to answering basic questions here, what makes you think Reddit will be different? Thank you for reading our Business Plan. I went ahead and PM you our contact number, please feel free to call us at any time so that I may better explain why for the safety and security of our office staff we did not revel our personal information. Please research Latin America security statistics (in particular Kidnap for Ransom) before making a judgement on someone not leaving under the same security and freedom that you may enjoy where you reside. We do appreciate your interest in our services. I hope that after we personally talk you may hold a different opinion. Thank you for some clarity on the subject. It would have been nice for you to have said that earlier. An alternative method for verifying your legitimacy will be needed. Havelock is not enough (or is it?). |
|
|
|
|
All redacted. What a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
Nothing has changed re "decentralized" issuing since January. The premise of that first article is flawed: So, if I say no it’s not because of any other reason than simply the obvious : I do not believe them to be either useful or practical. The discussion going on in this thread about limiting US-based investors is a perfect example of a good use case; right now (as far as I can tell) btct, bitfunder, etc... don't have extremely nuanced controls over who can buy shares and what they do with them after. **I may be wrong here, please correct me if so. Here it would be relatively trivial to build a client that interfaced with the btc protocol but added an extra layer of complexity to participating users, namely one could generate classes of rules for their colored coins that would restrict IPs, among other options. A person currently interested in owning some Bitcoin will either fire up a web wallet and receive some Bitcoins from a friend/counterparty, or will open MtGox and buy some bitcoins. Conspicuously absent from this either-or list is the downloading, over many days, through an inefficient process, of many Gigabytes of “blockchain”. Did he really just use that excuse? If the investors trusted the company enough to invest in their shares they could also trust them to store the blockchain and run an SPV node on their client. No need to worry about the blockchain. Seriously, start working on the BTC securities trade system of the future without ever having worked for MPEx, without having humbly presented your inept ideas to the most grandiose master Mircea Popescu (ie, me), without anything like that ? O, why, because you’re a special little trainflake of brilliance and genius who can ? Really ? Glad he made it personal, lol. Not to mention one doesn't have to build a whole trading platform to issue shares. Companies could issue their own shares with their own little colored coin client, no need for top down expertise in the area of running an entire SE needed. They would only have to build in the rules relevant to their issuance. Diligent research would provide you with all the tools you need. At the end you open source the client so people can trust your work. It is conceivable that someone could build a model for this, and when a company wished to issue shares, they would modify the conditions, much like the process in creating an alt cryptocurrency. Go tell the average finance person that any security trade on either side will have to be held an unspecified interval, of no less than five or so minutes and possibly as lengthy as an hour or more... In fact, people double spend securities all the time, it is called short selling. No big deal. I feel like he isn't thinking outside the box here. If the central issuer is being trusted and participants have been verified, just lower the number of confirmations. Stipulations could be built in to said color coin to allow for short selling I imagine as well, but again not my expertise I am just musing here. Even supposing you can somehow implement this so only crosses, not all transactions end up in the blockchainix, the problem of “what do we do in five years” looms. Again, if off-chain/micropayment solutions would not work to minimize bloat, you could just fork the chain and run your own party as long as the code is OS and people can see what is going on. And for that matter, nothing has changed with regard to the SEC's relevance to Bitcoin financials since 2012, the ignorant flailings of a magistrate judge in Bumfuck notwithstanding. They are withstanding, though. Not to mention their argument about the 'issuer', which I admit is a clever reading of the law, will not hold up in court. As we saw with FinCEN guidence earlier this year, they made a stipulation for the issuer problem and just did a side step around it. This will most likely happen with the SEC as well. I won't bother mentioning the fact that the article is very old, and fails to look at precedents set in the past that make similar arguments, namely that it is not money and that calling it as such would stifle video game developers and the like. I think those court cases were even mentioned in here. edit: on second thought i may be making too many presumptions with my analysis. i dont know how easy/hard this would be to do in reality, so take what i have said with a grain of salt. |
|
|
|
|
Not to mention you basically told us nothing new. If you are unwilling to release details please say so, no need to play cat and mouse.
|
|
|
|
Something to go on here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0219Abstract:The secure hash function SHA-256 is a function on bit strings. This means that its restriction to the bit strings of any given length can be computed by a finite instruction sequence that contains only instructions to set and get the content of Boolean registers, forward jump instructions, and a termination instruction. We describe such instruction sequences for the restrictions to bit strings of the different possible lengths by means of uniform terms from an algebraic theory. To phrase it more precisely, the standard describes an algorithm that computes the hash function SHA-256 by means of pseudo-code. In this paper, unlike the standard, an algorithm that computes a function is distinguished from the computed function.
...
It is shown in [6] that, in the case of instruction sequences of the kind that we have dealt with in this paper, instruction sequence length is a computational complexity measure closely related to non-uniform time complexity. An option for future work is investigating the possible role of this complexity measure in issues concerning the complexity of the different kinds of attack on secure hash functions like SHA-256. edit: for clarity, this is not about the current discussion, just a direct response to the OP. |
|
|
|
Honestly, I think these guys are just very amateur, incredibly lost, and obviously not well read (40% interest in the midst of a ponzi scheme trial, rofl). I think they have good intentions, but just flat out suck at their PR and presentation (google images for stock photos is nothing new). I doubt they'll achieve the 40% (or even 17%) they expect, but I'll be following this out of sheer curiousity.
Lying about your team and using stock photos to build fake identities is not done with good intentions, sorry mate. |
|
|
|
|
Yea, a little more information would be nice.
|
|
|
|
Are you kidding, you actually put money in these guys? Couldn't you wait a minute to see if it was legit or not. Coindesk even put poss ponzi in the TITLE. Mate look at the post above you, get your money out now. Coindesk interviewed their founder and that was good enough for me. You have to have sources that you trust, and right now Coindesk is my #1. My coins are locked in for 30 days, so hopefully at the end of that I won't regret the decision, but right now I can't get them out. For what it's worth, I also have coins in Coinlenders, but TradeFortress offers a lower return than these guys. Better liquidity and obviously more trust within the community, but if these guys are to be believed as to being who they say they are, it should not be surprising that they can offer significantly better returns. I'll admit that it is fishy that they offered such high rates initially, though crypto-currencies do offer significantly better returns for smart money than the mature markets of ForEx, and given the reaction here it is not surprising that they lowered the rates... Will report back. For future reference, don't trust news outlets. They get scammed too. Example: techcrunch posted the Cryonics miner scam. The guys who ran the scam pulled in half a million dollars from the feature. People lost a lot of money. |
|
|
|
Are you kidding, you actually put money in these guys? Couldn't you wait a minute to see if it was legit or not. Coindesk even put poss ponzi in the TITLE. Mate look at the post above you, get your money out now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
