[LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)

[JohnyBigs]

End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money.

That is not the same as owning the company!

Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares!

For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off.

Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security.

Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights. You still end up having ownership through the agreement and wording of the contract, which again becomes a legal contract.

Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company.

"I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. "

"We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors."

"Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company."

The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls.

[1714279974]

1714279974

[1714279974]

1714279974

[1714279974]

1714279974

[Luckybit]

End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money.

That is not the same as owning the company!

Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares!

For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off.

Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security.

Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights.

Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company.

"I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. "

"We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors."

"Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company."

The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls.

But let's not act like this company is on NASDAQ. You don't even own a direct share.

[ajk]

Social darwinism.

Sure... there is reason why the public blindly follow people like Carl Icahn and Warren Buffet, considering that they are worth billions of dollars probably has nothing to do with that right? right??

[JohnyBigs]

End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money.

That is not the same as owning the company!

Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares!

For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off.

Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security.

Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights.

Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company.

"I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. "

"We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors."

"Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company."

The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls.

But let's not act like this company is on NASDAQ. You don't even own a direct share.

Doesn't need to be on NASDAQ, it can be on myballz.com, it is still a legal binding agreement that is represented as such that the founders shares and the public's shares are the same, hence the public owns 70% of the company.

How do you know how many shares I own or don't own? Make wild speculations much?

[Luckybit]

Social darwinism.

Sure... there is reason why people blindly follow people like Carl Icahn and Warren Buffet, considering that they are worth billions of dollars probably has nothing to do with that right? right??

I'm not a sheep, are you? If you are then why are you playing with Bitcoins? After all the Warren Buffets and Carl Ichan types don't consider this to be real money yet.

[Mabsark]

What relevance does that have? Anyone who judges people based on their wealth is a complete and utter arsehole. Sadly, that applies to far too many people on these forums.

Net worth has relevance in the investing world considering it shows that they have a proven track record of good decision making, maybe its sad to you but to me a lot of my peers consider net worth something that matters

It proves nothing. Some people are just born into wealth and the more money you have the easier it is to make more money, as I've directly experienced over the past couple of months

I'd like to get a bunch of people like you and give them a small amount to trade with and see how well they do compared to some homeless person with the same amount. If the homeless person made more profit than the rich snobs would you then hold their opinion higher than the snobs opinion?

[JohnyBigs]

Social darwinism.

Sure... there is reason why the public blindly follow people like Carl Icahn and Warren Buffet, considering that they are worth billions of dollars probably has nothing to do with that right? right??

AJK go and watch TV like you planned on doing, release your mind from these idiots, who can't even grasp simple concepts. Going to go also, my IQ always drops on this forum from the responses on here.

[JohnyBigs]

What relevance does that have? Anyone who judges people based on their wealth is a complete and utter arsehole. Sadly, that applies to far too many people on these forums.

Net worth has relevance in the investing world considering it shows that they have a proven track record of good decision making, maybe its sad to you but to me a lot of my peers consider net worth something that matters

It proves nothing. Some people are just born into wealth and the more money you have the easier it is to make more money, as I've directly experienced over the past couple of months

I'd like to get a bunch of people like you and give them a small amount to trade with and see how well they do compared to some homeless person with the same amount. If the homeless person made more profit than the rich snobs would you then hold their opinion higher than the snobs opinion?

Of course he would, he is talking about it in the constructs of trading.

If homeless person was a better trader, I would hold him in higher opinion, even though his networth might be low, but given time his networth will grow. High networth means that these people invested properly, and given enough time the homeless man will achieve a high networth also.

[Luckybit]

End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money.

That is not the same as owning the company!

Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares!

For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off.

Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security.

Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights.

Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company.

"I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. "

"We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors."

"Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company."

The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls.

But let's not act like this company is on NASDAQ. You don't even own a direct share.

Doesn't need to be on NASDAQ, it can be on myballz.com, it is still a legal binding agreement that is represented as such that the founders shares and the public's shares are the same, hence the public owns 70% of the company.

How do you know how many shares I own or don't own? Make wild speculations much?

Nobody is disputing that. But true ownership requires equity and a lot of official procedures. What I'm saying is that Labcoin will have to become platform agnostic like how Asicminer is and offer direct shares and then you'd have a point but even then it's not something which can be regulated by the SEC because Labcoin is not an American company.

[Luckybit]

What relevance does that have? Anyone who judges people based on their wealth is a complete and utter arsehole. Sadly, that applies to far too many people on these forums.

Net worth has relevance in the investing world considering it shows that they have a proven track record of good decision making, maybe its sad to you but to me a lot of my peers consider net worth something that matters

It proves nothing. Some people are just born into wealth and the more money you have the easier it is to make more money, as I've directly experienced over the past couple of months

I'd like to get a bunch of people like you and give them a small amount to trade with and see how well they do compared to some homeless person with the same amount. If the homeless person made more profit than the rich snobs would you then hold their opinion higher than the snobs opinion?

Of course he would, he is talking about it in the constructs of trading.

If homeless person was a better trader, I would hold him in higher opinion, even though his networth might be low, but given time his networth will grow. High networth means that these people invested properly, and given enough time the homeless man will achieve a high networth also.

Trade has more to do with connections and access to information than anything else. None of you could even get in on the IPO of Google.

[JohnyBigs]

End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money.

That is not the same as owning the company!

Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares!

For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off.

Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security.

Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights.

Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company.

"I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. "

"We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors."

"Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company."

The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls.

But let's not act like this company is on NASDAQ. You don't even own a direct share.

Doesn't need to be on NASDAQ, it can be on myballz.com, it is still a legal binding agreement that is represented as such that the founders shares and the public's shares are the same, hence the public owns 70% of the company.

How do you know how many shares I own or don't own? Make wild speculations much?

Nobody is disputing that. But true ownership requires equity and a lot of official procedures. What I'm saying is that Labcoin will have to become platform agnostic like how Asicminer is and offer direct shares and then you'd have a point but even then it's not something which can be regulated by the SEC because Labcoin is not an American company.

It does not need to be regulated by the SEC! it's regulated by universal contract law which almost every country in the world recognizes. You have virtual ownership, in this virtual company, and you will get paid out profits in virtual currency.

If I say Lucky, I have an imaginary virtual company, and it has 10,000,000 shares. I will give you 7,000,000 shares for x amount of money. It does not matter that this is done person to person, on NasDAQ, on BtCT, or anywhere else. It does not matter that it's a virtual company, a legal binding contract has been formed, and you are required by law to honor your end of the contract, even that it's virtual.

You have ownership through the legal contract that was established.

[Luckybit]

End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money.

That is not the same as owning the company!

Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares!

For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off.

Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security.

Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights.

Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company.

"I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. "

"We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors."

"Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company."

The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls.

But let's not act like this company is on NASDAQ. You don't even own a direct share.

Doesn't need to be on NASDAQ, it can be on myballz.com, it is still a legal binding agreement that is represented as such that the founders shares and the public's shares are the same, hence the public owns 70% of the company.

How do you know how many shares I own or don't own? Make wild speculations much?

Nobody is disputing that. But true ownership requires equity and a lot of official procedures. What I'm saying is that Labcoin will have to become platform agnostic like how Asicminer is and offer direct shares and then you'd have a point but even then it's not something which can be regulated by the SEC because Labcoin is not an American company.

It does not need to be regulated by the SEC! it's regulated by universal contract law which almost every country in the world recognizes. You have virtual ownership, in this virtual company, and you will get paid out profits in virtual currency.

If I say Lucky, I have an imaginary virtual company, and it has 10,000,000 shares. I will give you 7,000,000 shares for x amount of money. It does not matter that this is done person to person, on NasDAQ, on BtCT, or anywhere else. It does not matter that it's a virtual company, a legal binding contract has been formed, and you are required by law to honor your end of the contract, even that it's virtual.

You have ownership through the legal contract that was established.

I never said it wasn't a legally binding contract. I said it's not equity.

Anyway have a look at this relevant article which specifically mentions Labcoin and asks some of the same questions you did.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/bitcoin-spawns-china-virtual-ipos-as-u-s-scrutiny-grows.html

[superduh]

a contract is a contract period. as long as the contract was legal to begin with (which it was) it's universally enforceable.
argghhdasfjhsdofdshfshfkdlsfhsl

contract that equates to full revenue share is the same thing as a straight up equity (minus the legal registration requirements that equity requires) it's a contract that's fully enforceable. you guys need to find different topic to clog up the next few pages with

[JohnyBigs]

End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money.

That is not the same as owning the company!

Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares!

For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off.

Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security.

Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights.

Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company.

"I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. "

"We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors."

"Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company."

The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls.

But let's not act like this company is on NASDAQ. You don't even own a direct share.

Doesn't need to be on NASDAQ, it can be on myballz.com, it is still a legal binding agreement that is represented as such that the founders shares and the public's shares are the same, hence the public owns 70% of the company.

How do you know how many shares I own or don't own? Make wild speculations much?

Nobody is disputing that. But true ownership requires equity and a lot of official procedures. What I'm saying is that Labcoin will have to become platform agnostic like how Asicminer is and offer direct shares and then you'd have a point but even then it's not something which can be regulated by the SEC because Labcoin is not an American company.

It does not need to be regulated by the SEC! it's regulated by universal contract law which almost every country in the world recognizes. You have virtual ownership, in this virtual company, and you will get paid out profits in virtual currency.

If I say Lucky, I have an imaginary virtual company, and it has 10,000,000 shares. I will give you 7,000,000 shares for x amount of money. It does not matter that this is done person to person, on NasDAQ, on BtCT, or anywhere else. It does not matter that it's a virtual company, a legal binding contract has been formed, and you are required by law to honor your end of the contract, even that it's virtual.

You have ownership through the legal contract that was established.

I never said it wasn't a legally binding contract. I said it's not equity.

Anyway have a look at this relevant article which specifically mentions Labcoin and asks some of the same questions you did.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/bitcoin-spawns-china-virtual-ipos-as-u-s-scrutiny-grows.html

You do have virtual equity in the virtual company, because that is what you agreed upon. In the contract you agreed upon virtual equity therefore you have it. How is this so hard to understand?

[JohnyBigs]

a contract is a contract period. as long as the contract was legal to begin with (which it was) it's universally enforceable.
argghhdasfjhsdofdshfshfkdlsfhsl

contract that equates to full revenue share is the same thing as a straight up equity (minus the legal registration requirements that equity requires) it's a contract that's fully enforceable. you guys need to find different topic to clog up the next few pages with

clearly it's not to the geniuses such as physalis and eruptor who post dribble nonsense, and always argue with people because they feel entitled, and clog up the thread with countless pages.

I'm glad at least one person isn't brain dead and understands the simple legalities of a contract.

[VolanicEruptor]

Please show me ONE Bitcoin security contract that states a share represents ownership.

[freedomno1]

Please show me ONE Bitcoin security contract that states a share represents ownership.

The Bitcoin shares are linked directly to VirtEx This is NOT a separate fund; this is the fund that represents real equity ownership in VirtEx!

Next

[VolanicEruptor]

Please show me ONE Bitcoin security contract that states a share represents ownership.

The Bitcoin shares are linked directly to VirtEx This is NOT a separate fund; this is the fund that represents real equity ownership in VirtEx!

Next

Where do you see that?  Please link.  I didn't know VirtEx was on BTCT.  Very convenient that you chose a company who deals with 50% fiat too.   
Show me a bitcoin mining company.

[JohnyBigs]

Please show me ONE Bitcoin security contract that states a share represents ownership.

- Regularly communicate the project financials to share holders in a way that lets share holders evaluate the performance, capital outlay and future of the project.

- Pay regular dividends amounting to a percentual share of ownership in the company on a bi-weekly basis. The dividends paid will consist of between 70-80% all profits while 20-30% of profits will be held as a reinvestment fund for development, marketing and manufacturing. ALL share holders have the right to an equal share of dividends directly based on their ownerhsip.

God your to fucking dumb it's not even funny,

This right here you useless space of molecules verifies that share holders are owners, it admits that owning shares ties into ownership: "ALL share holders have the right to an equal share of dividends directly based on their ownerhsip. "

Not to mention that the founders own the same shares we do and they are considered owners. The fact that being a shareholder is represented as being an actual owner in the company, these are all representations made for the contract.

If you can't see that like i said please stop wasting molecular space.

[HuLaN]

a contract is a contract period. as long as the contract was legal to begin with (which it was) it's universally enforceable.
argghhdasfjhsdofdshfshfkdlsfhsl

contract that equates to full revenue share is the same thing as a straight up equity (minus the legal registration requirements that equity requires) it's a contract that's fully enforceable. you guys need to find different topic to clog up the next few pages with

clearly it's not to the geniuses such as physalis and eruptor who post dribble nonsense, and always argue with people because they feel entitled, and clog up the thread with countless pages.

I'm glad at least one person isn't brain dead and understands the simple legalities of a contract.

It's funny how spot on this sentence describes you JB..  I wish a moderator could demote your positing privileges to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=39.0