SCAM IPO [Bakewell] - Finally, a 'transparent' investment that will 'grow'!

[Puppet]

Does this mean that CPA is technically insolvent?
(And is delaying the filing of insolvency)

Who knows, but I do see this:

[puffn]

Ian, you believed that your 4 bitcoins were in danger of being lost by being in CPA. You had no access to that money. Nothing has changed other than you are reducing the value that you perceived was at risk. He is giving the money back. This is an interpretation of the contract you signed.

What is the real problem here? The capital you had available to you has not changed, and you have secured what you think of as a better place for your investor's money.

Also, stop making those damn single posts with the smiley under them. They are fucking annoying.

[Deprived]

I can see arguments for both sides here:

On the one hand, the contract strictly interpreted would tend towards usagi sending the money to the shareholders.

On the other hand "send the money back" - which usagi agreed to - clearly means to where it came from.

Given that both parties to the contract (usagi/CPA and bakewell's shareholders) agreed to waive the terms of the contract, I'd have to end on Ian's side.  After all - usagi's own companies happily change their contracts with their shareholders (BMF seems to do it on a regular basis) and never bother getting the contract amended on GLBSE - so any new investors really don't have a clue what the contract of the week actually is.

Given that when usagi/CPA made an insurance contract with BMF (its own company) NEITHER side adhered to the contract (BMD didn't claim when entitled to, CPA never paid out, BMF stopped paying premiums - without any mention of either default by usagi), it's sudden desire to actually stick to the strict terms of a contract is hypocritical at a minimum.  It's also totally petty - but I wouldn't have expected anything different.

Having said all that, in Ian's shoes I'd almost certainly just dividend the 4 BTC to the shareholders anyway.  But that should be his choice, not usagi's.

[Deprived]

Oh - and for usagi's benefit, a contract is NOT broken or defaulted on when both parties to the contract agree to vary it or waive a term in it.

[Bitcoin Oz]

There is a possibility someone is wrecking IPO's on purpose. They buy a few shares and purposefully sell below the IPO price to prevent the issuer from raising funds and cause the failure of the IPO.

I wonder if glbse could "lock" trading on an IPO untill a specified time has passed ?

[Puppet]

Also for usagi's benefit (and anyone still under contract with CPA); insurance contracts are unilateral. Only the insurer makes legally enforceable promises in the contract and only the insurer can be held liable for breach of contract.

[btharper]

There is a possibility someone is wrecking IPO's on purpose. They buy a few shares and purposefully sell below the IPO price to prevent the issuer from raising funds and cause the failure of the IPO.

I wonder if glbse could "lock" trading on an IPO untill a specified time has passed ?

To do anything of the sort they would have to put the initial investment into the mix, even at the discounted IPO offering (10% bonus) money is still going towards the setup of BAKEWELL. It's just one way early investors can get out.

That being said, it wouldn't help things along any.

[btharper]

I can see arguments for both sides here:

On the one hand, the contract strictly interpreted would tend towards usagi sending the money to the shareholders.

That is correct.

On the other hand "send the money back" - which usagi agreed to - clearly means to where it came from.

Given that both parties to the contract (usagi/CPA and bakewell's shareholders) agreed to waive the terms of the contract, I'd have to end on Ian's side.

That is incorrect, specifically, my post was all about how I was not going to waive the terms of my contract with Ian. Dunno where you get your info but it's not from the contract.

All things being equal, I'd rather get trolled for keeping a contract than breaking it.

Per: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1223276#msg1223276 you're perfectly willing to change the effective terms of the contract after establishment.

As per multiple interpretations of

Although if you do want the money back that's fine, I just want to see that your shareholders agree (motion).

You agreed to refund Ian pending support by shareholders. Right now you look like you're just changing your mind because it didn't work out how you thought it would.

If you would like to argue the interpretation that's one thing, but some crazy and convoluted scheme to push a dividend just seems petty at best.

[Bitcoin Oz]

It seems obvious why usagi is pushing for the dividend since they own shares in Bakewell 

[Puppet]

It seems obvious why usagi is pushing for the dividend since they own shares in Bakewell  

Yeah he owns out of 432 out of 5928 shares, so this dividend would earn him 0.29 BTC. Things must be dire
Also, for fun

Voted Yea:4895
Voted Nay:433

so 1 share (other than usagi himself) voted for keeping the CPA contract. 99.97% voted against it. Fun stat.

[Deprived]

There is a possibility someone is wrecking IPO's on purpose. They buy a few shares and purposefully sell below the IPO price to prevent the issuer from raising funds and cause the failure of the IPO.

I wonder if glbse could "lock" trading on an IPO untill a specified time has passed ?

I don't think it#s being done to wreck IPOs - it's being done because it's profitable.  It's a direct effect of IPOs that offer bonus shares/discounts to large buyers AND put far more shares up for sale then will sell out in a short period.

How to make money on such IPOs:

1. Buy bulk shares, so you pay less than the listed IPO price.
2. Relist said shares at 1 satoshi below IPO price.
3. Once they've sold, if there's still bulk shares left go back to stage 1.

It makes the person doing it profit - without the IPO issuer selling any more shares to the public.  I'd considered doing it myself on this specific offering to be honest: as it's the perfect sort of IPO to make money in that way (about 9% profit basically).  To be clear, I haven't done it (yet) on this OR any other IPO - but it's precisely (one of) the sort of thing my tiny LTC fund (which you're aware of) intends to do.  We're not looking to make money by picking good value investments (as there aren't many).  We're looking to make money from the poor judgment of both asset managers and investors.

My point: if it's being done intentionally there's a perfectly sound reason to do it for financial gain - so no need for conspiracy theories about someone trying to wreck IPOs.

No way GLBSE should lock trading on IPOs that don't sell out fast:

1.  Investors should have the ability to liquidate assets.
2.  It would make the IPO sell out even slower - as with a bid-wall (or bid-mountain in this case) noone can buy in unless they believe there's a near-zero chance of them being able to cash-out in the foreseeable future.
3.  Why punish investors/speculators for the short-sightedness of an asset issuer?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Its more likely that the market for funding other people's mining farms is saturated.

[Justin00]

for those of us playing along at home
are you guys really arguing over 4btc ? or is that some initial payment or something ?

[MPOE-PR]

There is a possibility someone is wrecking IPO's on purpose. They buy a few shares and purposefully sell below the IPO price to prevent the issuer from raising funds and cause the failure of the IPO.

I wonder if glbse could "lock" trading on an IPO untill a specified time has passed ?

Ideally, that specified time would be in 2020. Combine this with the idea of holding IPO proceeds in escrow and you have an almost safe GLBSE.

[MrTeal]

And not shockingly, Usagi is now spreading FUD about Bakewell, as things do not appear to be going his way. Acting like a child and taking constant underhanded swipes at your clients and former clients is not the way to try to drum up support for your business.

[MPOE-PR]

It's the principal here.

You use "principal" for principle and smickles uses "principle" for principal? What are you, twins?

[zapeta]

I honestly think the best thing to do is pay the stupid dividend to get the BTC back from usagi, and then you don't have to deal with him anymore.  As a bonus, those of us who own shares don't have to shuffle through more back and forth BS that is accumulating in this thread and doesn't matter.

[btharper]

If your shareholders agree that the money should be returned to you, then it will be. I think that's fair.

Through the mountain of bullshit and everything else there is this.

However funds have already been received on the address Ian provided from a vanity address belonging to usagi. blockchain.info.

Maybe an impending dividend will help sell some IPO shares then. Here's hoping.

[Intention]

Thank you Usagi and Ian.  Now that this is all done I hope that this can be put to rest and we can move on now.

[btharper]

Something like S.Dice would be the simplest and quickest to drop in and use. First x many shares (probably 2500 here) are sold for regular price, then there's a small bump up in price, then repeat. Add in a week between release of selling out of one block and starting the next and you may see the price rise more on it's own that it would with just staggered releases. Depending on rate and market of course this sort of plan could get the price up to 0.175-0.2 pretty easily by the time everything is sold out.

The biggest problem I see coming is that any change in sales may make it harder to finish the IPO quickly, and the end goal is to be able to buy a SC Rig (or comprable) sometime before the end of the year (is there any sort of established goal time yet?, maybe just before the GPUs are useless).

The other thing you might want to consider looking into is the release of further shares, as long as you can do it without stalling the growth of current shares it may be worth looking into, but that's probably something for another motion.