The reason why is simple. Consider an asset like BAKEWELL. The operator is totally transparent and he checks out, he's verified, he uses his real name -- he even has a shareholder protection contract with CPA in order to build trust in the community. He's currently in IPO, selling his shares for .15. BMF likes BAKEWELL. We like it so much, we bought 432 shares. So, what's BAKEWELL worth? Logic would tell you, it's worth .15. Why not, that's what he's selling shares at, and he does need to finish his IPO. If his shares were not worth .15, say... if they were worth .1343, why would anyone pay .15? They wouldn't. In fact, one might even accuse Ian Bakewell.... of scamming!
I've nothing against BAKEWELL - as you say it's transparent and the guy seems genuine.
However, YOU didn't pay .15 per share (at least not for most of your shares). Private purchases get 110 shares for 15 BTC.
That works out at .... Wait for it ... 0.13636 per share.
So your case is that you buy the shares for 0.13636 and they then magically become worth 0.15? I think not. IF the IPO had sold out fast then you'd have a point - but it didn't and, as usual, you don't.
You COULD take an even more pessimistic view and include the additional shares he gets himself for free (i.e. work out the average price 'paid' per share including the ones he 'paid' nothing for). That would be wrong of course - but so is taking the HIGHEST price (0.15) anyone paid for a share (when the majority sold for 9% less) and claiming that is somehow their 'value'.
The truth is that, when a company fails to sell out an IPO it's very hard to put a value on it. The best you can say for SURE is that it's less than the IPO price (as all demand at that price has been fulfilled already - which is why it hasn't sold out). I think Ian (and plenty of others) do themselves and their shareholders a disservice by starting off trying to issue too many shares. Had he only initially issued enough shares for his first rig he'd have sold out already - and the market could begin trying to value his company. Because he didn't do that, he's placed a ceiling on the price at 0.15 - meaning all remaining demand necessarily has to be below that.
Looking for solutions to the ceiling problem.
Ideas, opinions? Nothing is going to suddenly change, we would need to hammer something out and then have a vote on it, but I think this is a valid concern.
I think one possible way to address this would be to pick a day and time, and each week on that day and time, reset the ipo price to = the last 5 day average + x% or something like that.
I want to reward initial investors, while at the same time raising money myself and expanding. I also realize that now with hardware purchased (money hit the bank today, shopping tomorrow) with the initial round of funding, dividends are going to be paid to people who bought into the second round and whos money will not be put to use until the remaining 2500 shares of their round sells out. ... So moving the shareprice up with each round seems necessary, so that each later round raises more funds and buys more hardware, rewarding investors in the first... thinking out loud...
Maybe decrease the bonus I give as well, and incrementally bring it down from 10%, decreasing the discount per share bulk purchasers get as we go on...
