Bitcoin Forum
July 17, 2024, 06:40:16 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading  (Read 129236 times)
Ukyo (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:30:53 PM
 #261

I will be posting details on the prior mentioned stuff as soon as I wrap up the days requests. Wink
Being busy is never a bad thing.

Teaser:

Fun update pushing out in the morning/noon-ish.
If you are one of those types who like to see things happening, this will be for you. Wink

Some of you know what it is. I have been talking about it for weeks now in irc. Tongue

I would do it now, but I am passing out. Thought I would leave everyone a tease.  Grin
burnside
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006


Lead Blockchain Developer


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2013, 04:33:44 AM
Last edit: March 25, 2013, 05:03:21 AM by burnside
 #262

Even though the bitfunder summary states that "AMC is made up of a team of dedicated Bitcoin mining professionals with over 30 years of combined experience in Computer Programming, Hardware Design, System Design, and System Administration" - I doubt that they have ever mined before.

More worrying is that nowhere in that skill-set/experience list is "managed a business" or "can do basic math".

Personally I'm pretty sick of all the IPOs that claim to have experienced teams but never identify them.  If IPOs can be that vague then why not cut them right down to the minimum - and have them just give a share price and send back whatever they feel like.  At least that would be honest and cut down the reading time for us.

Posting here because there doesn't seem to be anywhere else to discuss AMC and it's important people see this before they invest.

AMC is pretty amazing.

- Mining on ASICs, AND
- Developing their own ASICs, AND
- Operating an ASICMINER Fund ("as they become reasonably priced")


Bitfunder: https://bitfunder.com/asset/AMC
  -> Profile
    -> Images

There's an image there of their Avalon order, listing Ken Slaughter, Virtual Mining, Inc., 1951 S. Oak Grove Ave, Springfield, MO as the billing contact.

Doh.  http://www.sos.mo.gov/kbimaging/30317195.pdf Virtual Mining, Inc dissolved for failure to file their annual report.

The rest of the registration history: https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Filings.asp?3322736#


Add: I could not find evidence of registration for AMC Cooperative.  Missouri requires registration for business operation as a cooperative.  Could evidence of registration prior to IPO be provided?
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 05:02:04 AM
 #263

I'm assuming AMC only used that delivery name and address as a formality, possibly before this new company was even conceived. The annual report is likely meaningless. Could just be that the guy runs a mining biz on the side and realized that being formally incorporated was overkill. I dunno...

I do agree that AMC as an asset covers a lot of areas (mining, dev, etc), making themselves a target for skepticism, and that they should find a way to segment things better. But hey, maybe that's why the asset has been frozen all weekend...

Anyway, wouldn't you say that AMC cannot represent a real security, as that would be illegal in the US. Isn't this all just "virtual" trading? Wink

Why am I chiming in? Mostly because the passive-aggressive marketing/bickering between BTCT and BF on features, assets, volume, etc, is nonsense. You both thrive off of each other, and the more time either of you spend focusing on the other, the less time you spend actually getting shit done so I can make more money using your systems Cheesy
Ukyo (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 05:02:42 AM
 #264

AMC really should setup their own thread. It would be a better place to discuss it. Smiley
I have sent them a message asking to start a forum thread for you to discuss it with them.
They do have quite a few things needing discussion.

Sorry if my message is short, trying to push out an update. Fixing a firefox conflict. Wink
burnside
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006


Lead Blockchain Developer


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2013, 05:35:27 AM
 #265

I'm assuming AMC only used that delivery name and address as a formality, possibly before this new company was even conceived. The annual report is likely meaningless. Could just be that the guy runs a mining biz on the side and realized that being formally incorporated was overkill. I dunno...

I do agree that AMC as an asset covers a lot of areas (mining, dev, etc), making themselves a target for skepticism, and that they should find a way to segment things better. But hey, maybe that's why the asset has been frozen all weekend...

Anyway, wouldn't you say that AMC cannot represent a real security, as that would be illegal in the US. Isn't this all just "virtual" trading? Wink

Why am I chiming in? Mostly because the passive-aggressive marketing/bickering between BTCT and BF on features, assets, volume, etc, is nonsense. You both thrive off of each other, and the more time either of you spend focusing on the other, the less time you spend actually getting shit done so I can make more money using your systems Cheesy


This is NOT bickering and I did not take replying to someone else's post in the BitFunder thread lightly.  I knew damn well someone would bring it up, but outside of your comment answered in the next paragraph, this has nothing to do with BitFunder.  This is saving the fucking investors their money because noone has done any legwork or discussion on it anywhere.  (Incidentally, I didn't even start the discussion here?!)

I don't recall seeing any "it's virtual" claims anywhere on BitFunder.  (in fact, Ukyo has poked fun at btct.co for our legal efforts... https://btct.co/register ... https://bitfunder.com/terms/ )  And do I have to create a sock now just so I can discuss glaring issues with securities without being second-guessed?

This issuer is wanting to be the next BFL and is asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The issuer is actively using unregistered trade names, which seems to have gone on twice in this IPO.  Most importantly, it demonstrates clearly the issuer's lack of awareness of the legal landscape.

AMC really should setup their own thread. It would be a better place to discuss it. Smiley

That would be good.
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 05:45:39 AM
 #266

This is NOT bickering and I did not take replying to someone else's post in the BitFunder thread lightly.  I knew damn well someone would bring it up, but outside of your comment answered in the next paragraph, this has nothing to do with BitFunder.  This is saving the fucking investors their money because noone has done any legwork or discussion on it anywhere.  (Incidentally, I didn't even start the discussion here?!)

I don't recall seeing any "it's virtual" claims anywhere on BitFunder.  (in fact, Ukyo has poked fun at btct.co for our legal efforts...)  And do I have to create a sock now just so I can discuss glaring issues with securities without being second-guessed?

Not trying to rile you up man, nor am I saying AMC is due trust at the moment. I made my points, and yours float right beside them.
burnside
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006


Lead Blockchain Developer


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2013, 05:58:51 AM
 #267

Not trying to rile you up man, nor am I saying AMC is due trust at the moment. I made my points, and yours float right beside them.

No worries.

The quick tl;dr: Buyer beware on AMC until more documentation is provided.



Ukyo (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 07:37:39 AM
 #268

First off, I think you really need to take a few hours to relax.

Secondly,
There are many other assets out there asking for people to put their money in with little to less information, esp regarding company relations.

Third,
You are correct. BitFunder makes no claims or suggestions that users BTC holdings or shares have no real world value should the need arise to be questioned for/by users.
Furthermore, BitFunder makes no assertions, or suggestions that any holdings therein are purely virtual within a contained "virtual economic ecosystem" with no tie-in to anything tangible.
Any agreement of real world tangibility is at the sole agreement between any issuer and it's members.
BitFunder makes no definitive claims to being a mediator, arbitrator, or enforcer of these direct agreements.

Fourth,
Not sure that I poked fun as much as questioned it. To my understanding your current ToS is outdated. "Bits" and all that. You have not wanted to fix it for 3 months now.
I think far more people make fun of BitFunders. Wink

Additionally,
When investing into anything that is pseudo-anonymous and unregulated online, you should always do your research, and check things out as best as you can.
Especially if they are claiming to be purely virtual to begin with, leaving little to no legal standing for any sort of recourse of action should it be needed.
No matter how hard you try, or what you check into, it is a gamble. You can only try your best.

As an operator, I try to keep an objective mind open about all assets. I will question the ones that sound funny to me, and look for what facts that can be determined.
I have my personal opinion on many assets. I can say I think X is a scam because of Y, or Z is a scam because they just over charge, or that Y is begging for money for
something I think will never take off. However, because I am an operator, that puts me in a very delicate position publicly. For this reason I try to keep those final thoughts
to myself, or to a few people who I may talk to privately about.

When it comes to BitFunder, I try to give everyone a fair chance. If they have something that has a possible chance of being worth investing in, regardless of if other people agree with it, think its overpriced, or whatever their personal opinions may be of it, it's worth letting them post it.

A good example would be if someone made a quick demo website, and said they wanted to post it for investments before launching, with no intentions to use the funds towards the website in question, no registered business, and asking for half a million dollars or more.
I would probably be highly wary of a possible scam, especially if the site required a registered entity to do its business and did not even have that ready.
While I might not outright deny such a high risk asset request, I would put special limitations on it.
In this case, since the funds are not required for the site to open, the income would remain frozen until the site fully launched, and proved it could do the things it claims.
This way users funds are at least protected to some extent, and a few minutes of work and some claims of what might happen in the future does not cost people tens, to hundreds of thousands in losses if the business was to never get registered, had launch problems, the banks close accounts, or the guy simply gives up an disappears with the funds.
All this without a promise to pay back the funding, because it was meant to go right into pocket regardless of what happens.
I do not know of other exchanges that would enforce such a thing on the users behalf before allowing it to launch currently.
Then again, there are only 5 or so and I could be highly mistaken. Smiley

In the case of AMC, he has proven (to the best that can be at the moment) that he has purchased some equipment, and looking for investment into the possible earnings of the equipment.
He may have and offer other ideals and concepts in the future, but nothing is promised or guaranteed. Since the current equipment has already been purchased for the asset, who is anyone to question what prices he sets to be part of it? Sure, he could set a price higher than most might pay. This just means that most.. will not pay it. People have minds to decide their own personal risk factor. Do I agree with his pricing? Honestly, it is a matter of personal opinion. No different than peoples opinions of what price per share of Satoshi Dice or AsicMiner should traded at. As mentioned above, I think it's irreverent more so because it is my opinion.

A good many current day traded assets were funded based off of hopes and dreams of issuers. Some higher priced, some lower at their listing time.
Some who's dreams come true, some who's seen a horrible fate and may have even been able to at least get back some or all of their losses to look towards a new dream.

Final Thoughts:
Investors Beware. Always. Investing is a risk. Do not risk anything you can not afford to loose. Regardless of any documentations, or any other provided information.



burnside
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006


Lead Blockchain Developer


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2013, 09:39:12 AM
 #269


Great over-reaction.  Nice escalation.  Good shift of focus.  Way to treat a "Tier 3" BitFunder customer.

The asset you side-step around had a thread up for discussion for some time before voters approved it.  It still does.  Post there.  I'm but one of many in charge of approvals and your contribution is welcome.

Instead of assuming the worst, how about we assume that I was an early investor in Asicminer, (I was, tho not nearly enough!) and saw similar potential here, (I did) then with 10 minutes of digging discovered that the guy is ordering gear (interstate commerce) thus conducting business under an unregistered trade name (mail fraud? IANAL) and claiming (falsely) the legal protection of incorporation.  How might that change your response?  (thank you? you're welcome.) Do I assume this was malicious?  (no)  After seeing all the claims of experience in the description do I assume this was inept?  (pretty much have to.  read the pdf's on the MO website I linked.)  Is it important for other investors to know?  (duh)  Does it leave me feeling good about the new AMC CEO?  (let's discuss...)

Quote
Any agreement of real world tangibility is at the sole agreement between any issuer and it's members.
BitFunder makes no definitive claims to being a mediator, arbitrator, or enforcer of these direct agreements.

So with AMC... is it real?  Or is it not?  I can't tell.  Where does it say?

Quote
He may have and offer other ideals and concepts in the future, but nothing is promised or guaranteed.

Did we read different descriptions?

wisard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 272
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
 #270

Apologies for starting this row by talking about AMC. It may have been a good idea to create a new thread for it. (Maybe a moderator can move these select comments to a new thread?)

Here is my point of view as an investor. This is just my opinion. And I think I've posted something similar on Burnside's thread too.

I believe in the broken window fallacy. Shit companies attract more shit companies on an exchange. Awesome companies attract more awesome companies on an exchange. While the exchange should try to remain neutral and not judge the valuation of the company, it should have some kind of a vetting process that gets rid of most obvious scams.

My suggestions on what would help:

1. Have a pre-IPO announce and wait period. Every IPO should be announced at least 1 week in advance. Let the potential investors read the description and the plans. And ask questions or seek clarifications. Only after the 1 week period has gone by - should the exchange decide to list the security or not - after going through the feedback.

2. Ask the promoters to reveal who they are and why they are capable. If they don't want to do so publicly, a trusted escrow should be used.

These 2 things should make sure worthless and possibly scam securities don't get listed.

Buy me a beer or 2 if you enjoy my posts. BTC address: 1976Nb5u1T2haoxSZnJgHaemHYYtgKmTsU
wisard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 272
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 10:20:57 AM
 #271

One more debatable topic is:

I don't think a company should set multiple IPO prices.
x shares at 0.0001
y shares at 0.0002

This just encourages pump-and-dump.

I understand that because of the lack of underwriters in the community, companies have a problem valuing their security. But a possible solution is holding a dutch auction. Instead of having multiple IPO prices. And then not going through with selling all the shares when the company sees that the demand is not there for higher priced shares.

If the security is announced a week in advance, and the company reveals their reserve price and their minimum shares that needs to be issued in secret to the exchange (and not the public), the exchange can then hold a Dutch auction.  Allow the investors to make their bids. And then sell the shares to the bids if they are above the reserve price.

If the bids are way lower than the reserve prices - or if minimum shares won't be bought - the exchange knows that they shouldn't list the security.

Instead of a Dutch auction, OpenIPO works too.

Buy me a beer or 2 if you enjoy my posts. BTC address: 1976Nb5u1T2haoxSZnJgHaemHYYtgKmTsU
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 12:14:34 PM
 #272

One more debatable topic is:

I don't think a company should set multiple IPO prices.
x shares at 0.0001
y shares at 0.0002

This just encourages pump-and-dump.


Playing devil's advocate here, but as long as uptake of IPO shares is sufficient, why would the issuer care if people flipped shares? I'm theorizing that the flippers act as fluffers to get an IPO snowballing into completion, thus play a helpful (or at least not harmful) role.
wisard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 272
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 01:17:50 PM
 #273

One more debatable topic is:

I don't think a company should set multiple IPO prices.
x shares at 0.0001
y shares at 0.0002

This just encourages pump-and-dump.


Playing devil's advocate here, but as long as uptake of IPO shares is sufficient, why would the issuer care if people flipped shares? I'm theorizing that the flippers act as fluffers to get an IPO snowballing into completion, thus play a helpful (or at least not harmful) role.

Thank you for being devil's advocate. I'm not against flipping. In fact, I've made decent coin because of scaled bitcoin IPOs - just because I could get in earlier. But for the entire ecosystem, there are better systems and ideas available.

We've seen that the issuers have not sold all the shares they intended to or announced earlier. Seems like they are using this scaled pricing as a way to gauge demand.

Dutch auctions (with price reserves and minimum sale requirements) are a much better way to achieve that. It allows the crowd to decide if the company is worthy to be listed, instead of an exchange deciding that.
Good companies will raise more money with Dutch auctions.
And it won't create a pyramid type of a situation that pump-and-dump creates - which is good for investors.

So why not use better systems for IPO launches? Overall, auctions seem better for good companies, for investors, and for the exchange. The only parties it hurts are bad companies.

Buy me a beer or 2 if you enjoy my posts. BTC address: 1976Nb5u1T2haoxSZnJgHaemHYYtgKmTsU
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 01:39:56 PM
 #274

We've seen that the issuers have not sold all the shares they intended to or announced earlier. Seems like they are using this scaled pricing as a way to gauge demand.

Dutch auctions (with price reserves and minimum sale requirements) are a much better way to achieve that. It allows the crowd to decide if the company is worthy to be listed, instead of an exchange deciding that.
Good companies will raise more money with Dutch auctions.
And it won't create a pyramid type of a situation that pump-and-dump creates - which is good for investors.

So why not use better systems for IPO launches? Overall, auctions seem better for good companies, for investors, and for the exchange. The only parties it hurts are bad companies.

I'm not sure that your first assumption is true though (that they are testing demand). It could be they are intentionally creating an "Early Bird" situation to grease the wheels, like I mentioned. With Dutch Auctions not being the standard, I think they could just as easily be a recipe for a failed IPO.

If I were to IPO a business I would probably offer early bird pricing too. Or, pre-determined batch pricing (not sure if there is an official term for this), where you do like 25 price levels, and release all at once. For example, 1000 shares for X, 1000 for X(1.1), 1000 for X(1.2)... and so forth.

I'm sure there are even better approaches to pricing IPO shares, and ways to mix these methods of pricing, but I do lean towards accommodating all types of investors to make a successful IPO.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 25, 2013, 04:05:47 PM
 #275

One more debatable topic is:

I don't think a company should set multiple IPO prices.
x shares at 0.0001
y shares at 0.0002

This just encourages pump-and-dump.

I understand that because of the lack of underwriters in the community, companies have a problem valuing their security. But a possible solution is holding a dutch auction. Instead of having multiple IPO prices. And then not going through with selling all the shares when the company sees that the demand is not there for higher priced shares.

If the security is announced a week in advance, and the company reveals their reserve price and their minimum shares that needs to be issued in secret to the exchange (and not the public), the exchange can then hold a Dutch auction.  Allow the investors to make their bids. And then sell the shares to the bids if they are above the reserve price.

If the bids are way lower than the reserve prices - or if minimum shares won't be bought - the exchange knows that they shouldn't list the security.

Instead of a Dutch auction, OpenIPO works too.

I agree Dutch auction would be better.

The problem (in my view) with the recent wave of tiered prices isn't so much the principle of tiered prices but the extent to which it's being done (the difference in pricing between the tiers).  Having small increases (as with Satoshi Dice) is perfectly sensible - having prices that double (or multiply by ten or more in the case of the scammy ones) is rarely going to work out well : as one or other (or both) of the prices MUST be massively adrift of any reasonable valuation.

That's NOT an issue specific to Bitfunder - we've seen it on LTC-Global a fair bit too.  It nearly always happens on securities where the issuer is unable to work out a proper valuation for the shares.  If they can't work out a proper valuation then, honestly, they aren't ready to IPO.
Ukyo (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 04:17:52 PM
 #276

For the record, the example asset profile I listed in my last post fits descriptions of asset requests I get 1~2 times a week.
Upon being told that their funds would be held frozen until they produce, they magically disappear and most times their sites do too within a short time frame.

Wisard, even companies in the real world still have IPO fails. Wink

I expect things to change regarding IPO's on BitFunder over the next couple months.

As prerequisites become finalized you can expect to see BitFunder taking the crypto asset exchange to a new level. Smiley

Personally, I have always been a fan of "Announce IPO, let users post a BID wall, and release."
Issuers seem to not be so keen to that as they have minimums they are trying to raise. They also want/try to keep share pricing at a set amount.
Some for reasons of repaying the IPO amount on a per share basis back. Similar to AM. Smiley
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 25, 2013, 04:23:14 PM
 #277

A good example would be if someone made a quick demo website, and said they wanted to post it for investments before launching, with no intentions to use the funds towards the website in question, no registered business, and asking for half a million dollars or more.
I would probably be highly wary of a possible scam, especially if the site required a registered entity to do its business and did not even have that ready.

You're referring here to CRYPTO-TRADE.  First let me be plain that personally I would NOT have approved it.

But there's a few massive differences between it and AMC:

1.  Neotrix (who issued the CRYPTO-TRADE IPO) has been around in the community for a long time and already runs assets that have performed as promised for a significant amount of time.
2.  Neotrix' existing company clearly exists, trades, is registered and is run by him.
3.  Neotrix posted his a thread for discussion of his IPO - you'll see that I posted in it and was less than flattering.
4.  To the extent that either of them has provided proof of anything, neotrix has provided more.  It would take a few minutes to edit Avalon receipts as provided by AMC.  It would take at least hours to produce the evidence neotrix has provided.
5.  Neotrix' intention to build the exchange site was public knowledge and discussed for a fair while before the IPO.

I think CRYPTO-TRADE mainly got approval because of his existing securities.  I don't view that as a good reason myself - but 5 people did (4 if we assume one of the 5 yes votes was neotrix himself).

As I said, I wouldn't have approved EITHER of them at their current stage of development.  But AMC's is just so shockingly horrible that I'm amazed ANYONE would approve it.  Even if you accept most of the assumptions built into their model, it's not even consistent INTERNALLY.  There's basic errors like assuming they can add hash-power without increasing the network's hash-power.  All the math looks as though it was done in 5 minutes by someone who couldn't do math at all.  And the only proof offered of anything is something that's fakable in a few minutes (a screenshot of some text).

My first reaction to it was that it was April Fool's joke that got released a week early by mistake: and that he'd left an apostrophe out of his name.  Ken Slaughter = Ken's Laughter - laughter at anyone stupid enough to fall for it.
Ukyo (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 25, 2013, 05:02:45 PM
 #278

Honestly, I am serious that I am referencing at least 2 asset requests to bitfunder.

I like neotrix and his assets. I think I may be one of the larger holders even.
I did give him a bit of a hard time about his new asset asking what if's just to be sure of what to expect in the future.
I do it to my would-be issuers as well. Every one of them disappeared along with their site when I told them they would have to wait for fund releases.
I am also the owner/operator of another exchange very similar, and know very well first hand the requirements of banks, and anti-fraud measurements.
He referenced BTC-e who has no problems with this. Granted most people some how associate them with being shady because of whatever reasons myths tend to propagate.
They are however based out of Cypress. I just hope they don't have users funds stored in a a bad bank. Wink That being said, being a currency exchange, handling large amounts
of money, with absolutely no intentions of fraud control has a high chance of ending up like the many other large exchanges that have had bank accounts frozen, or like some where no other banks will simply send to them. And yes, it does fit the bill for that example also.

I am hoping for everyone's sake that his new site takes off with a roaring success. He is about a week away from launch, and has been pretty focused on testing.
So far though there has been no announcement of the official company registration that the investment is into, or any public facing updates on the site leading to any
new information. Currently the site is a project being launched under Esecurity SA company, who is in Panama, and listing a HK address on the asset and website.
Again, last I knew eCurrencies are/were highly illegal in China/HK. Perhaps it does not apply to HK and China only.

I am not, nor have I accused this of being a scam, or warned anyone away. I have only asked questions, and now re-stating some facts. It is entirely plausible that he has
everything good to go on his side, and just waiting for a big April 1st release. I will say that should the day come and go, without and happy results or extended delays, it would begin to lead to rather sad speculations.


And yes, I agree that special precautions should be put in place for easily "fakable" things. Smiley
kslaughter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
March 26, 2013, 05:33:48 AM
 #279

Even though the bitfunder summary states that "AMC is made up of a team of dedicated Bitcoin mining professionals with over 30 years of combined experience in Computer Programming, Hardware Design, System Design, and System Administration" - I doubt that they have ever mined before.

More worrying is that nowhere in that skill-set/experience list is "managed a business" or "can do basic math".

Personally I'm pretty sick of all the IPOs that claim to have experienced teams but never identify them.  If IPOs can be that vague then why not cut them right down to the minimum - and have them just give a share price and send back whatever they feel like.  At least that would be honest and cut down the reading time for us.

Deprived you are right I should of listed my business experence of 42 years and the fact that I created a nationwide Internet Service Provider (Active Internet Communications) on the domain axs.net.
kslaughter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
March 26, 2013, 05:43:43 AM
 #280

A good example would be if someone made a quick demo website, and said they wanted to post it for investments before launching, with no intentions to use the funds towards the website in question, no registered business, and asking for half a million dollars or more.
I would probably be highly wary of a possible scam, especially if the site required a registered entity to do its business and did not even have that ready.

You're referring here to CRYPTO-TRADE.  First let me be plain that personally I would NOT have approved it.

But there's a few massive differences between it and AMC:

1.  Neotrix (who issued the CRYPTO-TRADE IPO) has been around in the community for a long time and already runs assets that have performed as promised for a significant amount of time.
2.  Neotrix' existing company clearly exists, trades, is registered and is run by him.
3.  Neotrix posted his a thread for discussion of his IPO - you'll see that I posted in it and was less than flattering.
4.  To the extent that either of them has provided proof of anything, neotrix has provided more.  It would take a few minutes to edit Avalon receipts as provided by AMC.  It would take at least hours to produce the evidence neotrix has provided.
5.  Neotrix' intention to build the exchange site was public knowledge and discussed for a fair while before the IPO.

I think CRYPTO-TRADE mainly got approval because of his existing securities.  I don't view that as a good reason myself - but 5 people did (4 if we assume one of the 5 yes votes was neotrix himself).

As I said, I wouldn't have approved EITHER of them at their current stage of development.  But AMC's is just so shockingly horrible that I'm amazed ANYONE would approve it.  Even if you accept most of the assumptions built into their model, it's not even consistent INTERNALLY.  There's basic errors like assuming they can add hash-power without increasing the network's hash-power.  All the math looks as though it was done in 5 minutes by someone who couldn't do math at all.  And the only proof offered of anything is something that's fakable in a few minutes (a screenshot of some text).

My first reaction to it was that it was April Fool's joke that got released a week early by mistake: and that he'd left an apostrophe out of his name.  Ken Slaughter = Ken's Laughter - laughter at anyone stupid enough to fall for it.

Deprived you are right again.  Let me explain what happened, I had the IPO and numbers ready to go then Avalon post their 4X price increase and the fact that they were going to start batch 3 on Friday.  I know you can mine only 3,600 coins and day.  The problem was I was hurrying to get this put together and I stuck the number in the profit calculator and put them in the IPO.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!