[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[twentyseventy]

Dear Investors and Security Issuers,

As some of you may be aware a collective of security issuers and interested parties have banded together to attempt to purchase Burnside's code so that we can continue to operate the exchange, although perhaps under a different name and likely with some restrictions. If you are a security issuer please join the conversation on the recovery board (in the litecoin forum).

I am urging all security issuers not to make rushed decisions to move to a new exchange right now! Unfortunately some of you have gone to CryptoStocks.com already, which from what I can see is technically inferior and has near-zero liquidity (there are also some oddities like why VirCurEx has not paid dividends there for ages).

At CipherMine we are developing a simple tool to allow an issuer to import the .csv from a shareholder report and use that to distribute a dividend payment manually (ie. you just enter the amount and it sends that much to the shareholders). We intend to give this away to all of you for free.

BTC Trading Co does not shut down entirely for a month yet. You will be able to use the mechanisms there to distribute dividends in the mean time, and then you will still be able to with our tool or something similar.

It is the hope of our collective that we can have something operational within the next couple of months, so hopefully there would only be a short period of time where your securities were illiquid (barring manual trades of course).

To Shareholders, I cannot speak for all but most of us issuers intend to do the Right Thing and are making efforts, including committing significant personal resources, to try to look after you all.

In the mean time, please everyone hang in there and don't make panicked decisions! We will keep you posted as to developments.

Kate.

Burnside, can you comment on these developments?

[VolanicEruptor]

I really think this creates more legal troubles than letting it run its natural course.  Example: If Labcoin can't settle to a new exchange, you could be held liable  for shutting down BTCT.

I am curious..how could Burnside be liable if labcoin doesn't find a new exchange?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263445.msg3257327#msg3257327
 
If Labcoin wasn't a scam, burnside wouldn't be running away right now.  He is partially liable.  Even the transaction fees from which he has profited from, since they were used to purchase [possibly] fraudulent shares, could land burnside in a lot of trouble.  His legal barriers right now are not the "unknowns", because what is going on here is quite known.

Doesn't anyone also find it very strange the timing of these two events?

[dexX7]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263445.msg3257327#msg3257327
 
If Labcoin wasn't a scam, burnside wouldn't be running away right now.  He is partially liable.  Even the transaction fees from which he has profited from, since they were used to purchase [possibly] fraudulent shares, could land burnside in a lot of trouble.  His legal barriers right now are not the "unknowns", because what is going on here is quite known.

Doesn't anyone also find it very strange the timing of these two events?

You may think it's strange, but this justifies no conclusion like this without further evidence or indication.

[VolanicEruptor]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263445.msg3257327#msg3257327
 
If Labcoin wasn't a scam, burnside wouldn't be running away right now.  He is partially liable.  Even the transaction fees from which he has profited from, since they were used to purchase [possibly] fraudulent shares, could land burnside in a lot of trouble.  His legal barriers right now are not the "unknowns", because what is going on here is quite known.

Doesn't anyone also find it very strange the timing of these two events?

You may think it's strange, but this justifies no conclusion like this without further evidence or indication.

All that needs to be proven is that labcoin is a scam, then everything else will come.

[odolvlobo]

Doesn't anyone also find it very strange the timing of these two events?

The timing of every coincidence is strange. That's what makes it a coincidence. It's when the timing isn't strange that it might mean something.

[burnside]

Volcanic... Maybe you could go post in the speculation threads if you want to spin yarns?

I am not winding down because of anything LABCOIN related.  The issues we have are not related to any one asset.

Proper disclosure has been made since Day 1 that the site doesn't validate anything and we've been pro-active in trying to keep them to their word.

[burnside]

Dear Investors and Security Issuers,

As some of you may be aware a collective of security issuers and interested parties have banded together to attempt to purchase Burnside's code so that we can continue to operate the exchange, although perhaps under a different name and likely with some restrictions. If you are a security issuer please join the conversation on the recovery board (in the litecoin forum).

I am urging all security issuers not to make rushed decisions to move to a new exchange right now! Unfortunately some of you have gone to CryptoStocks.com already, which from what I can see is technically inferior and has near-zero liquidity (there are also some oddities like why VirCurEx has not paid dividends there for ages).

At CipherMine we are developing a simple tool to allow an issuer to import the .csv from a shareholder report and use that to distribute a dividend payment manually (ie. you just enter the amount and it sends that much to the shareholders). We intend to give this away to all of you for free.

BTC Trading Co does not shut down entirely for a month yet. You will be able to use the mechanisms there to distribute dividends in the mean time, and then you will still be able to with our tool or something similar.

It is the hope of our collective that we can have something operational within the next couple of months, so hopefully there would only be a short period of time where your securities were illiquid (barring manual trades of course).

To Shareholders, I cannot speak for all but most of us issuers intend to do the Right Thing and are making efforts, including committing significant personal resources, to try to look after you all.

In the mean time, please everyone hang in there and don't make panicked decisions! We will keep you posted as to developments.

Kate.

Burnside, can you comment on these developments?

I'm pretty sure that we can sell assets as long as they are used in a legal manner and we do not sell them as an ongoing concern.  This is why no sale can complete prior to shutdown, and the domains, database content, and my involvement cannot be included.

My thoughts are that we should have a silent auction for the site code, with a proportional portion of the purchase price able to be paid in LTC-GLOBAL revenue shares.  For example, if you own 10% of the shares, you would get a 10% discount.  I likely would apply a multiplier though, such that if you owned 10% of the shares, you'd get a discount equal to 3x that percentage, or something similar, thus diluting my own shares to the benefit of the other revenue shareholders.

I am aware that some of the existing LTC-GLOBAL revenue shareholders would prefer first right of refusal, but I do not believe that such an arrangement would be fair for other revenue shareholders that are not part of the deal because an alternate offer could come in for 2x more, and revenue shareholders that cannot be involved in the deal going forward (US residents) would not receive a fair value.  It is my opinion that giving a discount/credit toward the purchase price is the best compromise available.

Given the limitations at hand, I am open to alternate suggestions.

Cheers.

[odolvlobo]

Due to the newest circumstances I have to push this again..
... [tin foil hat stuff] ...

This really doesn't have anything to do with BTC-TC. You should move it one of the Labcoin threads where people might want to discuss it.

[drawingthesun]

Burnside, why does Labcoin have 9999998 shares outstanding?

[arousedrhino]

Burnside, why does Labcoin have 9999998 shares outstanding?

I was curious about this myself, it was 9999999 a day or so ago when I started noticing.

[Rannasha]

If the # of outstanding shares changes, then the asset issuer is buying/selling shares. In this case, it means that apparently 2 shares were bought by the issuer. Hardly anything worth mentioning, I reckon.

[drawingthesun]

If the # of outstanding shares changes, then the asset issuer is buying/selling shares. In this case, it means that apparently 2 shares were bought by the issuer. Hardly anything worth mentioning, I reckon.

Not to derail, but this implies that Labcoin is using IPO funds to buy shares 1/4th IPO price. I understand it was only two shares so far, lets see if they step up the buyback.

[dexX7]

Users sent back two shares to the issuer account "labcoin2", one was from me after the first outstanding share disappeared. Sorry for the confussion.

[drawingthesun]

Users sent back two shares to the issuer account "labcoin2", one was from me after the first outstanding share disappeared. Sorry for the confussion.

No worries. Thanks for clearing this up.

[Esh]

I'm pretty sure that we can sell assets as long as they are used in a legal manner and we do not sell them as an ongoing concern.  This is why no sale can complete prior to shutdown, and the domains, database content, and my involvement cannot be included.

My thoughts are that we should have a silent auction for the site code, with a proportional portion of the purchase price able to be paid in LTC-GLOBAL revenue shares.  For example, if you own 10% of the shares, you would get a 10% discount.  I likely would apply a multiplier though, such that if you owned 10% of the shares, you'd get a discount equal to 3x that percentage, or something similar, thus diluting my own shares to the benefit of the other revenue shareholders.

I am aware that some of the existing LTC-GLOBAL revenue shareholders would prefer first right of refusal, but I do not believe that such an arrangement would be fair for other revenue shareholders that are not part of the deal because an alternate offer could come in for 2x more, and revenue shareholders that cannot be involved in the deal going forward (US residents) would not receive a fair value.  It is my opinion that giving a discount/credit toward the purchase price is the best compromise available.

Given the limitations at hand, I am open to alternate suggestions.

Cheers.

Very glad to hear about this Burnside. The exchange continuing forward outside of American jurisdiction with the code base intact strikes me as the best possible outcome at this point.

Am I right in assuming that the existing entity 'LTC-GLOBAL' will wind down after the sale? Does this mean that LTC-GLOBAL (and BT-TRADING-PT) shareholders might look forward to a final payout of some kind after the site code is sold or auctioned? Can you say anything yet about what you anticipate the hierarchy of creditors will look like in that event, given that LTC-GLOBAL still has significant liabilities on its books (in the form of outstanding legal bills and the balance of the loan you made to LTC-GLOBAL to pay the initial legal retainer)?

[arousedrhino]

Users sent back two shares to the issuer account "labcoin2", one was from me after the first outstanding share disappeared. Sorry for the confussion.

And the second one (actually the first) was mine. I wanted to dump my last share directly to them. I lost some 0.0006BTC by doing it . Sorry, it was dumb idea.

haha so your saying I can transfer my 2 labcoin shares to labcoin2 and they will be subtracted from he shares issued?

[Carnth]

Users sent back two shares to the issuer account "labcoin2", one was from me after the first outstanding share disappeared. Sorry for the confussion.

And the second one (actually the first) was mine. I wanted to dump my last share directly to them. I lost some 0.0006BTC by doing it . Sorry, it was dumb idea.

haha so your saying I can transfer my 2 labcoin shares to labcoin2 and they will be subtracted from he shares issued?

That's the way it works. Any share sent back to the "issuer's account" is no longer counted as "outstanding."

[lg15x]

Dear Investors and Security Issuers,

As some of you may be aware a collective of security issuers and interested parties have banded together to attempt to purchase Burnside's code so that we can continue to operate the exchange, although perhaps under a different name and likely with some restrictions. If you are a security issuer please join the conversation on the recovery board (in the litecoin forum).

I am urging all security issuers not to make rushed decisions to move to a new exchange right now! Unfortunately some of you have gone to CryptoStocks.com already, which from what I can see is technically inferior and has near-zero liquidity (there are also some oddities like why VirCurEx has not paid dividends there for ages).

At CipherMine we are developing a simple tool to allow an issuer to import the .csv from a shareholder report and use that to distribute a dividend payment manually (ie. you just enter the amount and it sends that much to the shareholders). We intend to give this away to all of you for free.

BTC Trading Co does not shut down entirely for a month yet. You will be able to use the mechanisms there to distribute dividends in the mean time, and then you will still be able to with our tool or something similar.

It is the hope of our collective that we can have something operational within the next couple of months, so hopefully there would only be a short period of time where your securities were illiquid (barring manual trades of course).

To Shareholders, I cannot speak for all but most of us issuers intend to do the Right Thing and are making efforts, including committing significant personal resources, to try to look after you all.

In the mean time, please everyone hang in there and don't make panicked decisions! We will keep you posted as to developments.

Kate.

Burnside, can you comment on these developments?

I'm pretty sure that we can sell assets as long as they are used in a legal manner and we do not sell them as an ongoing concern.  This is why no sale can complete prior to shutdown, and the domains, database content, and my involvement cannot be included.

My thoughts are that we should have a silent auction for the site code, with a proportional portion of the purchase price able to be paid in LTC-GLOBAL revenue shares.  For example, if you own 10% of the shares, you would get a 10% discount.  I likely would apply a multiplier though, such that if you owned 10% of the shares, you'd get a discount equal to 3x that percentage, or something similar, thus diluting my own shares to the benefit of the other revenue shareholders.

I am aware that some of the existing LTC-GLOBAL revenue shareholders would prefer first right of refusal, but I do not believe that such an arrangement would be fair for other revenue shareholders that are not part of the deal because an alternate offer could come in for 2x more, and revenue shareholders that cannot be involved in the deal going forward (US residents) would not receive a fair value.  It is my opinion that giving a discount/credit toward the purchase price is the best compromise available.

Given the limitations at hand, I am open to alternate suggestions.

Cheers.

Burnside, I don't think it's a good idea to give discount for shareholders because lots of them may not involved in purchasing the code. But I think you can distribute the sold money to all shareholders proportionally. This is more fair and reasonable.

[Peter Lambert]

Burnside, I don't think it's a good idea to give discount for shareholders because lots of them may not involved in purchasing the code. But I think you can distribute the sold money to all shareholders proportionally. This is more fair and reasonable.

It should work out the same either way, one way the buyer pays a larger amount but gets some of it back, the other way the buyer pays less but does not get any of the distribution, which goes to the other shareholders.

[burnside]

Burnside, I don't think it's a good idea to give discount for shareholders because lots of them may not involved in purchasing the code. But I think you can distribute the sold money to all shareholders proportionally. This is more fair and reasonable.

It should work out the same either way, one way the buyer pays a larger amount but gets some of it back, the other way the buyer pays less but does not get any of the distribution, which goes to the other shareholders.

Yup, with the primary difference being the dilution of my own shares.  In effect, I would grant a current shareholder some portion of my shares prior to final distribution if they in fact win the bid.