[BTC-TC] BitVPS

[MisterSmith]

Ok, here's my deal.

Shares were valued ~0.0015 BTC each when btct.co closed down, when BTC were valued ~200$.
Now BTCs are ~500$, so it would be fair to expect a price of 0.0006 BTC per share.

Pay that, or you are a scammer, and I'll have a chat with my lawyer in a few days.

Over 50% of public shares have accepted and agreed to our offer. This is including 3/5 of the largest share holders.
We have consulted with a lawyer who specializes in securities prior to making our offer. We are well within our rights to execute this mandatory buy back and at +50%, the majority has already agreed to it. Rg broke his mpex contract/obligations to you guys. I would suggest finding rg and asking him where the proceeds of the sale went.

This is a non-negotiable gesture of good will and we hope you will claim your shares.

I never invested anything with RG.
I invested my money with you, on BTCT.co, under the contract that was written there.
So the price per share limit there makes perfect sense to me.

And you can say it as many times as you want, but "We're taking the thing you bought back for a tiny fraction of what you paid for it" is not a gesture of good will. It's an insult to everyone who invested with you.

2.2. The Terms of the IPO.

(a) The Directors have elected to divide BitVPS into 1`000`000 (one million) equal non-voting shares with a total equity value of 1`200 BTC (0.0012 BTC each). In the event of liquidation or breach of this Agreement they solemnly promise and warrant to repay all investors holding shares at this minimum value. The Directors through their elected representative solemnly promise and warrant never to issue more shares either on MPEX or any other venue nor in any way to dillute existing shareholders at any point in the future ;

This is the contract I agreed to, and this is the contract you are obligated to uphold.
This is between you and I. I never dealt with RG, and, to be frank, your dealings with him don't matter to me at all. They are not legally relevant.
I want you to pay what was promised. That's 0.0012 BTC per share.
I'm willing to accept the loss--since I did pay more than that for my investment--but if you want to show good will, you will keep the promises you made.

If not, be sure to give out an address where I can contact this lawyer of yours. I'm sure we can come to an arrangement.

[arij]

Ok, here's my deal.

Shares were valued ~0.0015 BTC each when btct.co closed down, when BTC were valued ~200$.
Now BTCs are ~500$, so it would be fair to expect a price of 0.0006 BTC per share.

Pay that, or you are a scammer, and I'll have a chat with my lawyer in a few days.

Over 50% of public shares have accepted and agreed to our offer. This is including 3/5 of the largest share holders.
We have consulted with a lawyer who specializes in securities prior to making our offer. We are well within our rights to execute this mandatory buy back and at +50%, the majority has already agreed to it. Rg broke his mpex contract/obligations to you guys. I would suggest finding rg and asking him where the proceeds of the sale went.

This is a non-negotiable gesture of good will and we hope you will claim your shares.

I never invested anything with RG.
I invested my money with you, on BTCT.co, under the contract that was written there.
So the price per share limit there makes perfect sense to me.

And you can say it as many times as you want, but "We're taking the thing you bought back for a tiny fraction of what you paid for it" is not a gesture of good will. It's an insult to everyone who invested with you.

2.2. The Terms of the IPO.

(a) The Directors have elected to divide BitVPS into 1`000`000 (one million) equal non-voting shares with a total equity value of 1`200 BTC (0.0012 BTC each). In the event of liquidation or breach of this Agreement they solemnly promise and warrant to repay all investors holding shares at this minimum value. The Directors through their elected representative solemnly promise and warrant never to issue more shares either on MPEX or any other venue nor in any way to dillute existing shareholders at any point in the future ;

This is the contract I agreed to, and this is the contract you are obligated to uphold.
This is between you and I. I never dealt with RG, and, to be frank, your dealings with him don't matter to me at all. They are not legally relevant.
I want you to pay what was promised. That's 0.0012 BTC per share.
I'm willing to accept the loss--since I did pay more than that for my investment--but if you want to show good will, you will keep the promises you made.

If not, be sure to give out an address where I can contact this lawyer of yours. I'm sure we can come to an arrangement.

The snippet which you provided is RG's contract. This was never on BTCT.

Here are links to our Contract & Prospectus:

1) http://puu.sh/8alXJ.jpg - Here you can see we were listed as a REVENUE SHARE.
Snippet from the Contract section: "Each share is entitled to 1/1,000,000th of BitVPS' profits."

2) http://puu.sh/8alZc.jpg - Here is a snippet from the Executive Summary section (right below the Contract section): "we can't make any promises regarding the past contract"

When BitVPS was on BTCT.co this Contract & Prospectus was publicly available for any investor to see. I suggest you thoroughly read the screen shots which I have provided. You can also use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to pull up the same information. http://web.archive.org/web/*/btct.co/security/BITVPS - Click June 18th. Once you see the website you will need to view the source.

fixed typo*

[Lohoris]

Over 50% of public shares have accepted and agreed to our offer.

It's not an offer, it's more like an extortion.

"Hi, we are violating every contract and running away, do you want 1/6th of what we owe you, or just nothing?"

[sido]

Over 50% of public shares have accepted and agreed to our offer.

It's not an offer, it's more like an extortion.

"Hi, we are violating every contract and running away, do you want 1/6th of what we owe you, or just nothing?"

+1

[MilkyLep]

Wouldn't this gesture seem more sincere if months ago you communicated the issues BITVPS was having as well as some of the "behind the scenes" activities?

This just seems way out of left field.

It doesnt even seem worth it to claim my shares so I can just maybe fill up my gas tank.

[thy]

As far as i understand BitVPS has also been breaking there contract with there shareholders after the time at btct.co to as there hasent been any monthly statements made public each months and most or all months they havent paid out dividend to people either so its not only on the time at mpex they broke there contract with the shareholders.
BitVPS is probably also breaking USA laws with there stock that has been issued on an unregulated exchange as probably at least some shareholders is not welthy enouth to be allowed to invest in whatever they choose if they happen live in the usa and is affected by those laws..

So i cant see how you can expect anyone to confirm that they have recieved dividends when you havent paid out dividend for at least most months after btct.co closed or giving you a free pass in this matter, that would be lying and clearly wrong to do.
The way bitcoins and bitcoin stocks works to its basically impossible to garantee or to make it transparent enouth that it isent you or anyone else that works or have worked for bitvps or in some other way would be consithered part of the inner circle or benefit from the process, that is part of the 3/5 of the biggest shareholders or owning those over 50% of the public stocks that you say have agreed to by bought out at the underprice you offer people, so that would invalidate that part to.

If you want people to be able to make any decition at all you need to lay all cards on the table, all missing monthly reports needs to be published and you need to specify all hardware and other things of value that bitvps now owns including fiat, bitcoins and other currencys of course.
None of the links of importance mentioned in this thread earlier seems to work any longer by the way:

https://bitvps.com/Investors/
https://bitvps.com/Investors/December2013.htm
https://bitvps.com/Investors/dec2013.html
https://www.bitvps.com/update.txt
https://www.bitvps.com/septoctexpenses.txt

So those links is of no use to the investors at the moment.

Are you sure that the buyback offer have been announced correctly, accourding to us laws, is 5-7 or whatever days you mentiond correct, isent such matter supposed to be send out by normal mail and to all shareholders and not only by email and to the one you have an emailadress to send to and with a timeframe of at least 1 month or something like that unless specal conditions is mentioned in the contract, well who knows maby us laws is that crazy, all shareholders in the usa probbaly knows exactly what applies to stocks in the usa and can clear that up.

Are you certain that simple majority is enoth for a buyback/forced buyback, dont you need qualified mayority, 2/3 or 3/4 or something like that, in many countrys you will need more than 50% for important decitions, as you claimed you had been talking to a lawyer and if you were following your lawyers adwise on the part where you thretened to illegally steal peoples share without paying people anything, that lawyers advise cant be of much value.
If there is a forced buyback everyone is of course entitled to getting payed whether or not they are willing to throw away some of there time to sign a message that you still havent managed to define what the exact content of it should be.

[arij]

As far as i understand BitVPS has also been breaking there contract with there shareholders after the time at btct.co to as there hasent been any monthly statements made public each months and most or all months they havent paid out dividend to people either so its not only on the time at mpex they broke there contract with the shareholders.
BitVPS is probably also breaking USA laws with there stock that has been issued on an unregulated exchange as probably at least some shareholders is not welthy enouth to be allowed to invest in whatever they choose if they happen live in the usa and is affected by those laws..

So i cant see how you can expect anyone to confirm that they have recieved dividends when you havent paid out dividend for at least most months after btct.co closed or giving you a free pass in this matter, that would be lying and clearly wrong to do.
The way bitcoins and bitcoin stocks works to its basically impossible to garantee or to make it transparent enouth that it isent you or anyone else that works or have worked for bitvps or in some other way would be consithered part of the inner circle or benefit from the process, that is part of the 3/5 of the biggest shareholders or owning those over 50% of the public stocks that you say have agreed to by bought out at the underprice you offer people, so that would invalidate that part to.

If you want people to be able to make any decition at all you need to lay all cards on the table, all missing monthly reports needs to be published and you need to specify all hardware and other things of value that bitvps now owns including fiat, bitcoins and other currencys of course.
None of the links of importance mentioned in this thread earlier seems to work any longer by the way:

https://bitvps.com/Investors/
https://bitvps.com/Investors/December2013.htm
https://bitvps.com/Investors/dec2013.html
https://www.bitvps.com/update.txt
https://www.bitvps.com/septoctexpenses.txt

So those links is of no use to the investors at the moment.

Are you sure that the buyback offer have been announced correctly, accourding to us laws, is 5-7 or whatever days you mentiond correct, isent such matter supposed to be send out by normal mail and to all shareholders and not only by email and to the one you have an emailadress to send to and with a timeframe of at least 1 month or something like that unless specal conditions is mentioned in the contract, well who knows maby us laws is that crazy, all shareholders in the usa probbaly knows exactly what applies to stocks in the usa and can clear that up.

Are you certain that simple majority is enoth for a buyback/forced buyback, dont you need qualified mayority, 2/3 or 3/4 or something like that, in many countrys you will need more than 50% for important decitions, as you claimed you had been talking to a lawyer and if you were following your lawyers adwise on the part where you thretened to illegally steal peoples share without paying people anything, that lawyers advise cant be of much value.
If there is a forced buyback everyone is of course entitled to getting payed whether or not they are willing to throw away some of there time to sign a message that you still havent managed to define what the exact content of it should be.

1/2013-8/2013 statements - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvwwyRGyc1WgdDFvQWJnZnRZQWJfbk1mNHYtVzhPR0E&gid=0
9/2013-11/2013 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjGS9IMt1lA6dG9jNlVuLVlkcWVzNDVYMGJva0otZEE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
11/2013 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An6qwdlD-DbCdHktZUgtSDRMRGhLMEdfNnZJM2h6RlE&usp=sharing#gid=0
12/2013 - https://bitvps.com/Investors/dec2013.html

The new (current) owners are not, and cannot be held liable for a IPO (or unregulated security) that was issued by another party(the previous owner).
On the BTCT contract there was no deadline for monthly statements.

We have paid dividends after the closure of BTCT. Most people have not been providing any information in regard to receiving dividends in their email responses. This is OK. We wanted to obtain as much information as possible, where possible. Those who have not provided this information (that they have been receiving dividends or not) will still be eligible to claim their shares.

[Namworld]

I know BitVPS's income currently hardly covers for salaries to have at least a few support staff for 24/7 coverage and at the same time buy more servers for expansion. But how are the shares getting BitVPS in bankruptcy?

- After paying 300 BTC for 12.5% of the company to RG ($3000 at the times admiteddly)
- Spending loaned funds (denominated in BTC) on servers to reduce BitVPS expenses and helping make it profitable enough so we could start buying more servers with income. Which I then got repayed at a lower rate since the loan to BitVPS was in USD for the servers (Which means I lost a good chunk of money to get BitVPS back on track.) RG's investors made BitVPS go on and you and me had losses to make it go further into turning a profit.
- Working my way to 17.8% through distribution of owners' shares on a work ratio basis before I left BitVPS after about a year.

I am now offered 178k x 0.025 USD or 4450 USD for almost 1/5th of BitVPS?

- Despite multiple servers owned
- Good client base
- Good brand
- Good potential

There's not much assets (~10000 if my memory is correct) and current profit margin is small and didn't consider paying salaries to owners, but at this point, considering the brand and potential, I strongly disagree that BitVPS is worth 25000 USD. Especially considering the growth BitVPS is enjoying and that 1 year of averaged dividend is far from sufficient. After all you've put into it, would you really take your prorata of $25000 and leave? Honestly? You had somewhere around 20% if I remember correctly, afaik. 500k of shares where never assigned to anybody and their dividends put in a pool to distribute to owners based on work put in. You get 50% of the business added forever to your 20% and buy the remaining 30% for 7500 USD. That's a heck of a sweet deal to be sole owner of BitVPS. You put in the most work, you got paid 200k in shares. How has over 50% of public shares agreed already? Since when are you the owner of the 500k? When I left we had already agreed the 500k was not to be paid out to anybody and as the sole working manager, you'd get paid any dividends disbursed to them.

If paying dividends was such an issue and BitVPS needs 100% of income for expenses and expansion, why not just withold any disbursement of dividends until BitVPS can do so? That is not out of question. If BitVPS can't operate without even paying dividends, why buy it at all or keep running it instead of liquidating? If that was the case, why buy it back to keep losing month after month money? You know it's not like that. You're paying a few peanuts more than the servers BitVPS own are worth (~3x), dismissing the worth and potential of BitVPS and the value of the investment made in it.

I am officially very angry at you. You've just damaged BitVPS's brand to top it.

Edit: I thought I had already argued with you again and again it was not a good idea to dismiss shares or buyback for peanuts. That it would be too damaging to BitVPS's brand and not okay.

[arij]

The choice to move forward with the buyout was made for a variety of reasons, amongst them being the financial burden that came with paying 30% of salaries as dividends. Employees that work full time do not deserve to receive a pay check that would amount to less than some one flipping burgers at a fast food restaurant.
The most important reason was when we began to question the legality of operating an unregulated security. This is against the law. We must abide by the laws of the land. That being said, it was the recommendation of our lawyer to perform a buyout for this exact reason.

[Namworld]

The choice to move forward with the buyout was made for a variety of reasons, amongst them being the financial burden that came with paying 30% of salaries as dividends. Employees that work full time do not deserve to receive a pay check that would amount to less than some one flipping burgers at a fast food restaurant.
The most important reason was when we began to question the legality of operating an unregulated security. This is against the law. We must abide by the laws of the land. That being said, it was the recommendation of our lawyer to perform a buyout for this exact reason.

Employees need not be paid with dividends. You can pay salaries and not give out dividends. The profit shares offer no burden as they are not required to be paid monthly if there is no income excess.

Ownership is not currently trading. It does not need to operate as a publicly trading security. I know BitVPS needed to put that back in order. It's just a matter of determining who owns how much of the business. That's what needs to be put in order. I refuse a buyout.

[twelvesigns]

I agree!

[Findus]

Employees that work full time do not deserve...

I also worked full time for the money I invested. Do I deserve this to go 95% to waste?

[MilkyLep]

Thank you Namworld for stepping up and giving us outsiders some more insight to the operation.

Things are certainly not adding up.

[Lohoris]

The choice to move forward with the buyout was made for a variety of reasons

Like "you are a scammer"?

Either those shares are legit, and in that case the buyback is illegal.
Or those shares aren't legit, and in that case you are a scammer since you accepted the money the investors gave you.

[Lohoris]

I refuse a buyout.

I assume you know personal details of the current so-called "owners"?
I would need to gather as much data as possible to hand out to my lawyer, so if you want to assist me I'd be grateful.

[MisterSmith]

I refuse a buyout.

+1 to this statement.
Though I think it goes without saying, at this point.

I thought the Bitcoin community was past this type of nonsense by now.

[Rick_1983]

I can't get in touch with arij or anyone else now,they dont reply nothing,who can get in touch with them now?

[broyboy]

It's okay, you can keep my $62, but if you ever become a successful company, I'll come knocking with my 2507 shares for my share of the profits.

[Rick_1983]

they dont answer nothing and they dont pay nothing.
now they are dispeared.

[Lohoris]

So essentially I should reconsider hosting my stuff on BitVPS. If they can screw their shareholders like this (including me) then why wouldn't they screw their customers like this (including me).

Well, they are criminals, so yes all the shareholders should appreciate if you moved to an honest host.