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

[MPOE-PR]

On what basis do you believ votes allocated purely to retain 30% for growth should vote?

By doing this you're basically saying that you get to vote with 50% of all shares every time (20% go to you, 30% to growth) so you only have to buy 1 share and you can pass any motion at any time.  So any time you choose you can withhold dividends, vote to close and pay back nothing etc.  It basically makes investment in the company worthless - as you get half the votes without having to part with a cent, so can change anything and do anything you want.

If the company were to close down, would growth shares get a portion of the proceeds from liquidation?  If yes - then where would those funds go?  If no, then pretty obviously they don't hold equity and can't vote (they're just a clumsy method to hold back 30% for growth).

Seems strange you'd devalue your company like this just to hang onto a few BTC - but issuers doing everything they can not to return funds to investors isn't exactly new.  FWIW if I'd held shares I'd probably have voted YES - retain the cash for growth - but fixing a vote to do it isn't the way to get a change.  Passing a motion is MEANT to be hard - as contracts should be rarely changed - it's not meant to be something operator just does on a whim without overwhelming support from investors.

This went over well....

[bitcoinbear]

Earnings up until Noon MST today were: BTC50.5627901
These earnings have been retained and added to the 127.3 we had previously banked.

BAKEWELL now has BTC177.8627901 in reserve.

The next dividend will be paid out on Monday Dec 24 2012 before 12 noon MST, for earnings accumulated between now and then.

The remaining 1800 shares in the current tranche have been put up on ask @ .15
I am giving a 10% bonus on purchases over 100 shares through private transfer - pm me.

How much is currently being mined? (how many hash per second?) What will the payment per share be this coming monday?

[Carnth]

Because Ian's personal shares and company shares will equal 50% of the vote, it makes any future motion worthless and Ian can vote whatever he wants.

This is false.
The bonus shares paid to private sales, alongside the way my private and the G&M shares are balanced in, mean that at no time do I control 50% or more of the currently outstanding shares.

I figured it this way:

20% = Personal Stake
30% = Growth and Maintenance

That's where I got 50% from.

Then you subtract the "10% special offer" on shares. And if people were to take full advantage of your offer, at a maximum that would subtract, 10%.

So, at the very, very least you would still control 40%. This is still too much in my opinion.

The 30% Growth and Maintenance is what I see as the problem. Those shares should not vote.

[Charles Bass]

Because Ian's personal shares and company shares will equal 50% of the vote, it makes any future motion worthless and Ian can vote whatever he wants.

This is false.
The bonus shares paid to private sales, alongside the way my private and the G&M shares are balanced in, mean that at no time do I control 50% or more of the currently outstanding shares.

yeah, thats the story on the paper!
But what if you buy shares from the open market ?
What if one of your best friends hold shares for you?

Ian make a statemant that you will never again vote with g&m shares!
Give us our promised transparancy!

If more of my claimd points will be complaid, i am open to raise my bakewell holding.

greets Chuck!

[creativex]

crash + burn

ian would you please address the controlling interest issue that's been raised? This is clearly a weight dragging down the share price.

[Charles Bass]

I am very dissatisfied with you Ian And with bakewell!
No answers, no announcements , Crash And burn our Money And value...

Greets Chuck

[creativex]

crash + burn

*shrug*

Usagi has nothing left to sell.
They dumped 430 shares onto the market at a loss to tank my shares and make me look bad.
A few hundred after the motion and the last hundred just after they posted a scammer thread about me.
Bad news, then tank shares, and you all come into my thread screaming...
 Now they claim they never had the shares, so it looks like they pocketed some money, left BMF holding the bag, and can now come rant against me.
w/e, Usagi can go kick rocks and BAKEWELL is still up and running fine.

Enjoy the cheap shares, even with the 10% bonus you can not get them from BAKEWELL for less than .135
The people who picked up the dumps will sell around .125 and make a 100% profit, good for them.
The rest of you will need to wait for those to sell in order to see prices stabilize in the proper trading range.

No answer then? I don't care if usagi has it in for you, I care that I'm a shareholder with no voting rights. I've been buying cheap shares because I hoped you'd address this problem and make it right and the share price would stablilize at higher levels. IOW I thought the selling was over done, but this issue must be addressed.

[usagi]

crash + burn

*shrug*

Usagi has nothing left to sell.
They dumped 430 shares onto the market at a loss to tank my shares and make me look bad.
A few hundred after the motion and the last hundred just after they posted a scammer thread about me.
Bad news, then tank shares, and you all come into my thread screaming...
 Now they claim they never had the shares, so it looks like they pocketed some money, left BMF holding the bag, and can now come rant against me.
w/e, Usagi can go kick rocks and BAKEWELL is still up and running fine.

Enjoy the cheap shares, even with the 10% bonus you can not get them from BAKEWELL for less than .135
The people who picked up the dumps will sell around .125 and make a 100% profit, good for them.
The rest of you will need to wait for those to sell in order to see prices stabilize in the proper trading range.

No answer then? I don't care if usagi has it in for you, I care that I'm a shareholder with no voting rights. I've been buying cheap shares because I hoped you'd address this problem and make it right and the share price would stablilize at higher levels. IOW I thought the selling was over done, but this issue must be addressed.

Ian is ripping me off. Here's the scam accusation thread. Please weigh in there:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133362.0

I did not know that Ian was also under fire for other stuff like misrepresenting shareholder votes. But, if he owns shares he bought legally (there's no way he bought 50% of his company though) then he should have the right to vote. Unless he is using stolen/free/issued/unpaid-for shares to act against the best interests of paying shareholders... In that case please post whatever you have to the scam accusation thread above.

[creativex]

Ian is ripping me off. Here's the scam accusation thread. Please weigh in there:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133362.0

I did not know that Ian was also under fire for other stuff like misrepresenting shareholder votes. But, if he owns shares he bought legally (there's no way he bought 50% of his company though) then he should have the right to vote. Unless he is using stolen/free/issued/unpaid-for shares to act against the best interests of paying shareholders... In that case please post whatever you have to the scam accusation thread above.

You and Ian obviously have some history going back to GLBSE, I'm loathe to delve into all that, but I will read your post.

Here he's simply voted with maintenance shares that plainly had no vote, and ironically on a motion that would have passed anyway. The problem is the precedent that it's set, since at any time he can create a motion and pass it without shareholders even having a voice. Nobody has an issue with Ian voting his own 20% + whatever he's purchased however he pleases, but the 30% of shares reserved for maintenance do not get to negate a paying shareholder's vote.

I'm not prepared to call him a scammer, I still hope he'll do the right thing. I'm just surprised he's beating down his own company's market cap and spooking his shareholders over something so easily rectified. Ian, create a motion that would require maintenance shares be returned to treasury prior to shareholder votes. If it passes write it into the contract and I'll feel better about holding Bakewell shares long term and I'm sure others would as well. Alternatively you could offer to do away with maintenance shares altogether and simply withhold a portion of dividends to pay expenses, the effect would be the same, but the risk of you overriding shareholder votes with a 50% +1 vote would be removed.

[Deprived]

Ian is ripping me off. Here's the scam accusation thread. Please weigh in there:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133362.0

I did not know that Ian was also under fire for other stuff like misrepresenting shareholder votes. But, if he owns shares he bought legally (there's no way he bought 50% of his company though) then he should have the right to vote. Unless he is using stolen/free/issued/unpaid-for shares to act against the best interests of paying shareholders... In that case please post whatever you have to the scam accusation thread above.

You and Ian obviously have some history going back to GLBSE, I'm loathe to delve into all that, but I will read your post.

Here he's simply voted with maintenance shares that plainly had no vote, and ironically on a motion that would have passed anyway. The problem is the precedent that it's set, since at any time he can create a motion and pass it without shareholders even having a voice. Nobody has an issue with Ian voting his own 20% + whatever he's purchased however he pleases, but the 30% of shares reserved for maintenance do not get to negate a paying shareholder's vote.

I'm not prepared to call him a scammer, I still hope he'll do the right thing. I'm just surprised he's beating down his own company's market cap and spooking his shareholders over something so easily rectified. Ian, create a motion that would require maintenance shares be returned to treasury prior to shareholder votes. If it passes write it into the contract and I'll feel better about holding Bakewell shares long term and I'm sure others would as well. Alternatively you could offer to do away with maintenance shares altogether and simply withhold a portion of dividends to pay expenses, the effect would be the same, but the risk of you overriding shareholder votes with a 50% +1 vote would be removed.

That's a fair summary of what happened.  The motion legitimately passed anyway.

Don't make a motion to move development shares - make a motion to get rid of them (existing ones retuirned to treasury and no more issed).  Just put 30% of revenue into development fund then distribute rest - and in future it would be 20 management shares issued for every 50 normal ones sold - they were unneeded just to work out what 30% was: a calculator can be used to do that.

[creativex]

You've set a precedent alright and trust once lost can be difficult to regain. The shares in question do not belong to you, they belong to the company, IOW they belong to all shareholders collectively. By treating those shares as though they were your own personal shares to vote you've proven you cannot or will not honor that distinction. You simply cannot negate the vote of a shareholder with a G&M share they own in part as well.

[LoweryCBS]

I could even be persuaded to vote towards a contract change where those shares must vote abstain.

It is apparent that this is a good idea -- Let's make it happen.

[creativex]

I could even be persuaded to vote towards a contract change where those shares must vote abstain.

It is apparent that this is a good idea -- Let's make it happen.

Not good enough. There is no proof that those shares are being voted any particular way. I suggested they be returned to the treasury because then anyone can see that the shares outstanding has been reduced.

I'm saddened that you've chosen to go this route Ian. I'll be selling my remaining shares...likely at a loss. I no longer trust you.

[Charles Bass]

I am against this way...
If you going this way Ian, it will be better you close bakewell, sell all the Staff an payout any shareholder...
The problem is, Shares doesnt had a mind, so they cant vote for there self!
Only the guy who owns the shares can vote becouse he has shares.

But who owns M&G Shares?
Yes the Company Bakewell owns this share, but no to vote! these shares are only for a better organization.
These shares are here that the company get some Bitcoins if dividend were payed!
The M&G Share are property of Bakewell to get cash, but not that you can vote what you want!
And i own Bakewell Shares, so a part of Bakewell an all the property of Bakewell is also my property!

Ian, you work against your shareholders.
Get an equitable stake in a transparent & growing mining company -> is a Lie
It sholud be more like this: "Give a Canadian your money and let him do what he want in a untransparent & money burning company"

[Deprived]

2012-12-27 12:30   ฿ 1.20253119   5700   0.00021097

1500 * 0.00021097 = BTC0.316455 received on growth and maintenance

Sorry, a little late today, was hard to anticipate earnings and schedule the div due to the diff change, and I had some personal things to attend to this morning.

----

A share is a share, they are all equal, period.

While I may entertain the idea of figuring out a way to control the G&M interest
(board of directors usually steers something like that right) to ease fear of me "51% attacking" the company
(which is ridiculous in bitcoin land, why bother holding votes if I am going to be malicious. Much easier to just turn scammer and do whatever the hell I want. Same results either way.)

&

I could even be persuaded to vote towards a contract change where those shares must vote abstain.
(It was actually me who asked burnside to implement the "abstain" button on the vote, and I came damn close to using it.)


I wanted to set a precedent. I will not handicap a share.
(.... Unless you want to make the 30k G&M class A and the remainder class B non vote. I mean ... if we are going to handicap, why not go that way?)

While at the moment we have an excess of ipo shares and the dividends on G&M shares are contracted to the growth fund so they appear to just be a lazy way to split divs, I anticipate those shares becoming extremely important to BAKEWELL down the road. The distribution is as it is and a share is a share.

Simple question:

Who owns those shares?  Is it:

a) The company
b) Ian Bakewell

Here's a clue: B) isn't the right answer.

They are NOT the same as other shares.  If the company closes down, assets are sold and proceeds distributed do they get part of that? If so, what happens to it?  If they did get distribution it would become part of the assets to be distributed and have to be shared out again (and again, and again).  Those shares don't own equity - they're just a device to set aside funds.  Vague crap about "they'll be important in the future" is just that - vague crap.

There won't be a "down the road" unless you start getting your act together and doing the stuff that needs doing like fixing the contract, working out a valuation for current assets (you won't be able to sell new shares if they're priced way above what assets are backing current shares - that may not be case of course), getting rid of the growth shares so new investors aren't put off by you appearing to control a massive chunk of voting power that you never bought etc.  Oh - and working out a plan to go forward.

ASICMINER's chips arrived from the foundry yesterday.  They could well be mining within a few weeks.  Strangely this could actually be GOOD news for you so long as you get your act together within a few months (it's bad news for any mining company that has pre-orders on ASICs).

[strello]

There won't be a "down the road" unless you start getting your act together and doing the stuff that needs doing like fixing the contract, working out a valuation for current assets (you won't be able to sell new shares if they're priced way above what assets are backing current shares - that may not be case of course), getting rid of the growth shares so new investors aren't put off by you appearing to control a massive chunk of voting power that you never bought etc.  Oh - and working out a plan to go forward.

Agreed. These are exactly the issues that need addressing NOW.

Ian, you are demonstrating extraordinary arrogance and disregard for your investors with your comments such as:

*shrug*.....

.....Bad news, then tank shares, and you all come into MY thread screaming...

A share is a share, they are all equal, period.....

 ....The distribution is as it is and a share is a share.

You have to realise now that your shareholders are important to you and the survival of the company.

Please address these issues as soon as possible:

Fix the contract- it's a mess and out of date.

Publish the current valuation of equipment.

Fix the growth shares issue- they should not have a vote, even if you believe they belong to you.

And please let us know what the future plan is, as clearly none of the 1800 shares from the second tranche are going to sell any time soon.

[creativex]

The shares are equitable and owned by me.
They are considered considered active for growth and maintenance with the dividends received on them contracted to the expansion of the BAKEWELL company after covering BAKEWELL expenses.

So Ian Bakewell's stake in BAKEWELL is actually 50% of outstanding shares + whatever he's purchased on the market? Everytime 5 shares of bakewell were sold an equal portion was given to Ian Bakewell FOR FREE? That is not what BAKEWELL's contract says.

[Deprived]

The shares are equitable and owned by me.
They are considered considered active for growth and maintenance with the dividends received on them contracted to the expansion of the BAKEWELL company after covering BAKEWELL expenses.

wrong answer.

Contract includes:

"My compensation will be received as dividends on my 20,000 shares "

It doesnt' say "My compensation will be received as dividends on 20,000 of my 50,000 shares" - so it clearly defines the number of shares you own as being 20,000.

Nor does it say "My combensations will the dividends on the 20,000 founders shares and the equity of all founders shares and growth shares."

A case could be made that by defining your compensation as you did, you aren't even entitled to the equity of founder's shares (any benefit you receive without paying for it is compensation).  I wouldn't personally argue that harshly.

I suggest if you hold to that line that you start liquidating now - as for sure you won't sell any more shares.  But i'm guessing you already know that and are trying to grab as much as you can whilst hoping noone will notice you thieving.  Can't stop you thieving obviously - but can make sure everyone knows about it if you do (assuming the RL info you've provided is real).

[Charles Bass]

The shares are equitable and owned by me.
They are considered considered active for growth and maintenance with the dividends received on them contracted to the expansion of the BAKEWELL company after covering BAKEWELL expenses.

Sorry you are wrong, you own 20%, bakewell 30 And we 50... Otherwise you Lie And brake your contract!

Contract:
The shares will be released on a 5 : 3 : 2 schedule
For every 5 shares sold to the public, 3 will be considered active for
growth and maintenance, and 2 will be sent to my personal portfolio.
This will keep the percentages proportional to funds raised while we grow


Atm i think you want that everyone sell und you Run with the Equipment if nobody is left..
Look like Scam, you changed your mind much After des GLBSE Shutdown.. This was the First try to run...

[bitcoinbear]

Why are there shares for growth and maintenance? Profit should just be multiplied by 0.7 and the remaining 30% sent to a publicly announced bitcoin address for safe keeping. Since these shares are owned by the company, they should not vote, or they should at least vote how the rest of the shares vote for them to vote (now that is getting a bit complicated). They should in no way ever be represented as being owned by Ian, they are owned by the company. Which is just silly, why would a company own itself?