btt

[Esh]

Issuers can, of course, set that box to say 'No' or 'Yes, with vote'. As assets migrate to Bitfunder from BTC-TC it will be up to investors to ensure that issuers respect the terms of their existing contracts and set that option appropriately. As in all things Bitcoin, caveat emptor.

[creativex]

Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

[iCEBREAKER]

Asset issuers on bitfunder can unilaterally alter their own contracts.

This is common knowledge and my primary reason for never having registered for an account on bf. To me this says "this exchange is not to be taken seriously"

CX, please recall that in the situation with AMC/VMC's IPO Ukyo enforced the initial terms, forcing all shares to be sold at 0.0005 and greatly angering Ken:

Quote from: Ukyo on May 31, 2013, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: kslaughter on May 31, 2013, 04:22:36 PM
Quote from: dhenson on May 31, 2013, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: kslaughter on May 31, 2013, 03:37:16 PM
The description does not say that, and it controls.

Can someone translate?

Sorry for the legal ease.  The description says that AMC may post the shares at no less that .0005

I think the issue is that the vast number of shares you are trying to sell, in comparison to the market, is huge.
It seems to me, that people would like you to set an official amount of shares at prices. This is why the tier method has worked in the past.

Perhaps you should say up to X shares will be Y price, and then Z shares will be A price, etc.. and use reasonable numbers.
I am sure the shareholder would much rather have that.

My two cents.

I think there was plenty of demand at the .0008 range and the volume was good.  Now by your God action you have caused my
investor to be mad at me.  I had no choice except to reduce the price to .0005 when I all the right per the description to sell
shares at no less that .0005.  You have hurt my reputation my you blantant action based on what in your "God" mind was the
right price.  The market was setting the price.  I tried to sell shares at .0009, but the market did not agree, so I reduced my
price to .0008 and the market started buy again.  I have went my the letter of the description which is posted on bitfunder.com

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=158806.msg2334871#msg2334871

Bitfunder is more flexible about changing contracts, which is a good thing because many assets undergo evolution for completely legitimate reasons (EG MiningCO's 1:10 split).

Ukyo is pretty strict about looking out for the investors, so that flexibility is limited to changes which are to their benefit.

Burnside OTOH, while strict and inflexible about changing contracts, allows any scam with enough votes to be listed (GARDEN, LABCOIN, CRYPTX) and doesn't really do much when they start screwing over investors.

I trust Ukyo even more than I trust you CX (no offense intended, both of you are controlling some of my BTC  ) and as you say, "trust is all that matters in this space."

[creativex]

I do not trust Ukyo more than I trust me. No offense.

[cix888]

Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

mate BTCT is closing

what are we doing?

Direct shares?

I'm happy with anything

But we can't keep it like that... Uncertainty kill in this market

The stock will be at 0.01 by the end of next week

[JimiQ84]

Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

mate BTCT are closing

what are we doing?

Direct shares?

I'm happy with anything

But we can't keep it like that... Uncertainty kill in this market

The stock will be at 0.01 by the end of next week

Ideal time for buyback Pssst! 

[Esh]

Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

I think you misunderstand me Creative. My point is simply that issuers moving from BTC-TC have contractual responsibilities to their shareholders, and that shareholders should hold them to those responsibilities. Many many assets will move to Bitfunder in the next two weeks. The details of those migrations matter, and those following this thread who have positions in assets making that migration should be vigilant.

[creativex]

I think you misunderstand me Creative. My point is simply that issuers moving from BTC-TC have contractual responsibilities to their shareholders, and that shareholders should hold them to those responsibilities. Many many assets will move to Bitfunder in the next two weeks. The details of those migrations matter, and those following this thread who have positions in assets making that migration should be vigilant.

I don't think there's a misunderstanding at all. Determining whether and where to move is an important decision. I'm weighing the options and don't see bitfunder as viable for the reasons I've already stated. I've met my responsibilities to shareholders today by scheduling dividends to be paid at precisely the time of day in which they were scheduled last week before this disaster began.

I'm off the clock now.

[creativex]

Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

mate BTCT are closing

what are we doing?

Direct shares?

I'm happy with anything

But we can't keep it like that... Uncertainty kill in this market

The stock will be at 0.01 by the end of next week

Ideal time for buyback Pssst!  

This isn't labcoin, BTCGarden, PETA-MINE, ActM or countess other money grabs. bASIC-Mining has only ever taken in a total of 1872.7165 on the sale of 4000 shares while paying out 682.6940 in dividends, and 1584.5395 to purchase hardware and investments.

This means we've already paid out 394.5170 more than we've ever taken in from investors and we still have 762.9402 in liquid assets belonging to shareholders as well as 2.235Th of mining gear also belonging to shareholders. This value has been created through responsible management.

I donated the original ASIC pre-order that this company was founded upon. I find it offensive that you'd even make such a comment even if in tiny text.

[Esh]

I think you misunderstand me Creative. My point is simply that issuers moving from BTC-TC have contractual responsibilities to their shareholders, and that shareholders should hold them to those responsibilities. Many many assets will move to Bitfunder in the next two weeks. The details of those migrations matter, and those following this thread who have positions in assets making that migration should be vigilant.

I don't think there's a misunderstanding at all. Determining whether and where to move is an important decision. I'm weighing the options and don't see bitfunder as viable for the reasons I've already stated. I've met my responsibilities to shareholders today by scheduling dividends to be paid at precisely the time of day in which they were scheduled last week before this disaster began.

I'm off the clock now.

I believe you are interpreting my comments as directed towards you and BASIC, or as impugning your trustworthiness unless constrained by a contract. Nothing could be further from my intent. In fact this is the only thread I'm following in which the subject of the contract modification terms on Bitfunder has even come up (to say nothing of the fact that it was you who brought it up, much to your credit). I do, however, mean to defend the possibility of moving to Bitfunder if this issue can be addressed in a satisfactory way (setting aside the reasons I noted earlier that suggest that Havelock is on more solid regulatory ground), while also encouraging those reading to take this same problem up with other issuers. Of course the final decision on migration is yours, and I'm confident that you'll make it with the best interests of shareholders in mind.

[iCEBREAKER]

I do not trust Ukyo more than I trust me. No offense.

   What?  How dare you!

I trust Ukyo *WAY* more than I trust myself.   

No offense.  Wait, wut?!

[freedomno1]

October 3rd for havelocks announcement regarding their legal status not sure if bitfunder will do a similar research based approach.

Hello everyone, just an update on Havleock Investments and the ongoing legal uncertainty in the bitcoin world.
We are still working with our legal team to get our affairs in order and have been told we will have information with which to move forward next week.  We'll be letting everyone know on Thursday October 3rd.
To all the fund managers who have contacted us inquiring about listing, we thank you for your interest and will be able to give some definite answers next Thursday.
Thanks for your time.

[Twilight_Sparkle]

October 3rd for havelocks announcement regarding their legal status not sure if bitfunder will do a similar research based approach.

Hello everyone, just an update on Havleock Investments and the ongoing legal uncertainty in the bitcoin world.
We are still working with our legal team to get our affairs in order and have been told we will have information with which to move forward next week.  We'll be letting everyone know on Thursday October 3rd.
To all the fund managers who have contacted us inquiring about listing, we thank you for your interest and will be able to give some definite answers next Thursday.
Thanks for your time.

If Nasty's news update is anything to go by as well:

Could we move to Havelock or any other exchange?
I asked Havelock. The response was "We are not accepting new assets at this time."

It seems that there is a chance that havelock will be down soon as well. Soon we will need a silkroad version of an exchange  .

[freedomno1]

Could we move to Havelock or any other exchange?
I asked Havelock. The response was "We are not accepting new assets at this time."

It seems that there is a chance that havelock will be down soon as well. Soon we will need a silkroad version of an exchange   .

Please do not list on MPEX would rather go with a direct shareholder list XD.
(A reference to the MPEX faq if it ever died it would go tor and namecoin the site is down currently you will need to check it later)

Havelock did say they were not actively pursing new assets, so can't blame them as they want to wait for the official opinion of their legal team before making a decision so still within expectation.

We're not actively looking to acquire any of their listings until we have more details on the situation.

[JimiQ84]

Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

mate BTCT are closing

what are we doing?

Direct shares?

I'm happy with anything

But we can't keep it like that... Uncertainty kill in this market

The stock will be at 0.01 by the end of next week

Ideal time for buyback Pssst!  

This isn't labcoin, BTCGarden, PETA-MINE, ActM or countess other money grabs. bASIC-Mining has only ever taken in a total of 1872.7165 on the sale of 4000 shares while paying out 682.6940 in dividends, and 1584.5395 to purchase hardware and investments.

This means we've already paid out 394.5170 more than we've ever taken in from investors and we still have 762.9402 in liquid assets belonging to shareholders as well as 2.235Th of mining gear also belonging to shareholders. This value has been created through responsible management.

I donated the original ASIC pre-order that this company was founded upon. I find it offensive that you'd even make such a comment even if in tiny text.

I am sorry I offended you, it wasn't meant in that way. What I meant is that BASIC could buy back some shares and discard them, so dividends per share will be larger.

[xhomerx10]

Not really the point. Trust is all that matters in this space. If an asset issuer is trustworthy then it doesn't matter which boxes are checked. They'll adhere to their own contract anyway. The issue for me is that it's even an option. If btct.co did blow up because of the labcoin and btcgarden fiascoes then what will stop bitfunder from doing the same? Particularly given that some asset issuers listed there will not only choose to make their contracts unilaterally fungible but can and have unilaterally altered those contracts after selling shares.

mate BTCT are closing

what are we doing?

Direct shares?

I'm happy with anything

But we can't keep it like that... Uncertainty kill in this market

The stock will be at 0.01 by the end of next week

Ideal time for buyback Pssst!  

This isn't labcoin, BTCGarden, PETA-MINE, ActM or countess other money grabs. bASIC-Mining has only ever taken in a total of 1872.7165 on the sale of 4000 shares while paying out 682.6940 in dividends, and 1584.5395 to purchase hardware and investments.

This means we've already paid out 394.5170 more than we've ever taken in from investors and we still have 762.9402 in liquid assets belonging to shareholders as well as 2.235Th of mining gear also belonging to shareholders. This value has been created through responsible management.

I donated the original ASIC pre-order that this company was founded upon. I find it offensive that you'd even make such a comment even if in tiny text.

I am sorry I offended you, it wasn't meant in that way. What I meant is that BASIC could buy back some shares and discard them, so dividends per share will be larger.

 Hey JimiQ84,
  Jak jiste vite, you can buy your own shares at the bargain prices and increase your own dividends while at the same time lowering your average buy price.  Sometimes you should filter your thoughts before committing them to screen.

and Hey Everyone else,

 CreativeX has steered and continues to steer this revenue share with honesty and integrity - values which seem to be lacking in many areas of Bitcoin.  I believe he will do what is right based on logic and reason rather than the emotionality and haste you people would foist on him at this time of uncertainty.  We don't even know all the details of this latest news.  Give the man some time to think things through.

Creativex,
 Take care of yourself.  Whatever you do, make sure to consider your best interests above all of us leechers who would only desire to make money from your ideas and hard work.

[bobsag3]

Having spent some time talking with Creativex on the phone - if nothing else the man does his research and the returns on this asset show it.

[mutex]

So, I guess we wait for Havelock's announcement next week regarding their legal status?

I still hope burnin will sell the source codes of the exchange to someone reputable in bitcoin community and btct will live again under a new name. Hopefully far from the reach of US regulators.

[lano1106]

What I really appreciate is how much more calm and civilized Basic mining investors are compared to what I have seen in other security threads.

basic mining is the btc security that I worry the less holding.

have a good week-end everyone

[joele]

Please if you have news update, post it in your btct news section. thank you.