|
piecinitup
|
 |
July 31, 2013, 02:56:08 PM |
|
so If we are planning to invest now - should we hold off or should we add to the order book? Right now it looks like its way way past the initial IPO shareprice of .001
My question as well. Although I did set an order at .001 already. I guess we'll see what happens soon. I still vote for all orders wiped (mine included) and the roll out at 8 PM. |
https://1broker.com/?r=34050 1broker is the easiest way to trade other markets than crypto using BTC! Copy successful traders or just trade yourself!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You get merit points when someone likes your post enough to give you some. And for every 2 merit points you receive, you can send 1 merit point to someone else!
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
grimholt
Member
 Offline
Activity: 104
Merit: 10
|
|
July 31, 2013, 02:57:42 PM |
|
hmm maybe because it cheap... easy to deliver and actually pretty reliable... but wtf do I know Vbs and myself has already asked TheSwede75 to address this several times, without getting any response (see my latest post). |
|
|
|
|
Bitcycle
|
|
July 31, 2013, 02:58:32 PM |
|
Burnside has already commented that higher bids would take priority, regardless of timestamp.
I've made a decision based on that statement, and it will not be reasonable to change that policy now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheSwede75 (OP)
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:01:07 PM |
|
so If we are planning to invest now - should we hold off or should we add to the order book? Right now it looks like its way way past the initial IPO shareprice of .001
My question as well. Although I did set an order at .001 already. I guess we'll see what happens soon. I still vote for all orders wiped (mine included) and the roll out at 8 PM. The main two solutions we are looking at is either to reset the order books and start the IPO as previously announced at 8 PM Central Time (US) or create a custom solution where we aim to fill as many orders as possible at IPO price (more on this from Ethan Burnside when he can present a solution). All I can promise at this point is that we are working towards finding a solution that will give as many investors as possible the opportunity to purchase shares at the price set in the IPO. We are NOT intending to profit off the demand as our project plan is funded at IPO price and the last thing we want to do is drive the share price or inflate the value of the project at the cost of our investors. |
|
|
|
|
dhenson
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:02:35 PM |
|
NEW UPDATE:
We are working with Ethan Burnside of BTCT.CO on a solution to the overwhelming demand. IF we can find a solution that does not involve resetting the order book and opening the sale at previously announced time (8 PM CENTRAL TIME - US) we will communicate this here in advance (at least a few hours). If the solution is found to be 'good' by a majority of investors we may release share-sale earlier then previously communicated.
The reason for this would be (among many):
- Avoid possible technical malfunction of BTCT.CO
- Release the shares at IPO price and allow fair distribution among investors unable to place their orders at exactly 8 pm Central
- Avoid a situation where a large investor buys a majority of available shares at EXACTLY 8 pm Central
Once again, we are sorry for the situation at hand but had very little options in how to handle the sale as we had no control over the approval process.
PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.
Quoting for posterity. I am not moving my bids as instructed. Otherwise I would have bid higher thus resetting my time stamp. |
|
|
|
|
joele
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:02:51 PM |
|
Me, I don't care, It's IPO and very profitable for short term trading or even long term. |
|
|
|
|
|
TheSwede75 (OP)
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:04:01 PM |
|
hmm maybe because it cheap... easy to deliver and actually pretty reliable... but wtf do I know Vbs and myself has already asked TheSwede75 to address this several times, without getting any response (see my latest post). I have reached out to our development team and they will offer an in depth technical explanation behind Labcoins reasoning behind density choice. What I can tell you is that the choice of developing the first generation ASIC using 'old technology' is the far superior price point and manufacturing availability/time to market this provides. Labcoin is also as stated already far into the development process for a 65 nm chip for the next generation of the ASIC. |
|
|
|
|
|
E.Sam
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:04:41 PM |
|
NEW UPDATE:
We are working with Ethan Burnside of BTCT.CO on a solution to the overwhelming demand. IF we can find a solution that does not involve resetting the order book and opening the sale at previously announced time (8 PM CENTRAL TIME - US) we will communicate this here in advance (at least a few hours). If the solution is found to be 'good' by a majority of investors we may release share-sale earlier then previously communicated.
The reason for this would be (among many):
- Avoid possible technical malfunction of BTCT.CO
- Release the shares at IPO price and allow fair distribution among investors unable to place their orders at exactly 8 pm Central
- Avoid a situation where a large investor buys a majority of available shares at EXACTLY 8 pm Central
Once again, we are sorry for the situation at hand but had very little options in how to handle the sale as we had no control over the approval process.
PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.
Quoting for posterity. I am not moving my bids as instructed. Otherwise I would have bid higher thus resetting my time stamp. The problem is that others have already moved their bids following Burnside earlier statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
TheSwede75 (OP)
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:06:02 PM |
|
NEW UPDATE:
We are working with Ethan Burnside of BTCT.CO on a solution to the overwhelming demand. IF we can find a solution that does not involve resetting the order book and opening the sale at previously announced time (8 PM CENTRAL TIME - US) we will communicate this here in advance (at least a few hours). If the solution is found to be 'good' by a majority of investors we may release share-sale earlier then previously communicated.
The reason for this would be (among many):
- Avoid possible technical malfunction of BTCT.CO
- Release the shares at IPO price and allow fair distribution among investors unable to place their orders at exactly 8 pm Central
- Avoid a situation where a large investor buys a majority of available shares at EXACTLY 8 pm Central
Once again, we are sorry for the situation at hand but had very little options in how to handle the sale as we had no control over the approval process.
PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.
Quoting for posterity. I am not moving my bids as instructed. Otherwise I would have bid higher thus resetting my time stamp. |
|
|
|
|
|
TheSwede75 (OP)
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:06:54 PM |
|
NEW UPDATE:
We are working with Ethan Burnside of BTCT.CO on a solution to the overwhelming demand. IF we can find a solution that does not involve resetting the order book and opening the sale at previously announced time (8 PM CENTRAL TIME - US) we will communicate this here in advance (at least a few hours). If the solution is found to be 'good' by a majority of investors we may release share-sale earlier then previously communicated.
The reason for this would be (among many):
- Avoid possible technical malfunction of BTCT.CO
- Release the shares at IPO price and allow fair distribution among investors unable to place their orders at exactly 8 pm Central
- Avoid a situation where a large investor buys a majority of available shares at EXACTLY 8 pm Central
Once again, we are sorry for the situation at hand but had very little options in how to handle the sale as we had no control over the approval process.
PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.
Quoting for posterity. I am not moving my bids as instructed. Otherwise I would have bid higher thus resetting my time stamp. The problem is that others have already moved their bids following Burnside earlier statement. I am leaning any decision making on the expertise of Ethan Burnside. |
|
|
|
|
limbaugh
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1311
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:07:05 PM |
|
The problem is that others have already moved their bids following Burnside earlier statement.
It has to be reset due to Burnsides statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ytterbium
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:07:24 PM |
|
PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.
Okay, here's the problem: I had an order in last night at 0.001. But reading the thread this morning people were saying it was just going to be filled from highest price down, so I canceled my order and placed another one at a slightly higher price, enough that I would still get shares if they were sold 'normally'. Is there going to be a hard cutoff for new orders at a server time of exactly 2013-07-31 15:34:00?. If so, then my order will be fine, I guess. Are you going to take into consideration the time people initially bid, if they canceled their orders and raised the price so they could still get shares given all the conflicting information? |
|
|
|
|
E.Sam
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:08:43 PM |
|
PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.
Okay, here's the problem: I had an order in last night at 0.001. But reading the thread this morning people were saying it was just going to be filled from highest price down, so I canceled my order and placed another one at a slightly higher price, enough that I would still get shares if they were sold 'normally'. Is there going to be a hard cutoff for new shares at a server time of exactly 2013-07-31 15:34:00?. If so, then my order will be fine, I guess. Are you going to take into consideration the time people initially bid, if they canceled their orders and raised the price so they could still get shares given all the conflicting information? +1 |
|
|
|
|
|
VinceSamios
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:08:52 PM |
|
1. 11 year old technology
2. 130nm chips will not mine at a profit within 5-8 months
3. 130nm chips coming online at the same time as 28nm chips from two other suppliers
4. 65nm chips due to be developed in 2014.... when 28nm chips are already on the market, as well as bulk 65nm chips
5. Not hashing until they can get their own hardware online (it took BFL 12+ months)
6. F*d up the IPO and pissed off potential investors before they even started....
remind me, why are people investing in this ipo?
I think BTC IPO's are a bubble... a massive massive bubble. The idea that people are prepared to buy this shit illustrates that fact completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcycle
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:09:37 PM |
|
PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.
Okay, here's the problem: I had an order in last night at 0.001. But reading the thread this morning people were saying it was just going to be filled from highest price down, so I canceled my order and placed another one at a slightly higher price, enough that I would still get shares if they were sold 'normally'. Is there going to be a hard cutoff for new shares at a server time of exactly 2013-07-31 15:34:00?. If so, then my order will be fine, I guess. Are you going to take into consideration the time people initially bid, if they canceled their orders and raised the price so they could still get shares given all the conflicting information? It wasn't just random people saying bids would be filled from the highest down, it was also Burnside himself. |
|
|
|
|
pheaonix
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
http://casinobitco.in/ A+ customer support
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:10:39 PM |
|
1. 11 year old technology
2. 130nm chips will not mine at a profit within 5-8 months
3. 130nm chips coming online at the same time as 28nm chips from two other suppliers
4. 65nm chips due to be developed in 2014.... when 28nm chips are already on the market, as well as bulk 65nm chips
5. Not hashing until they can get their own hardware online (it took BFL 12+ months)
6. F*d up the IPO and pissed off potential investors before they even started....
remind me, why are people investing in this ipo?
I think BTC IPO's are a bubble... a massive massive bubble. The idea that people are prepared to buy this shit illustrates that fact completely.
someone wants cheap shares  |
|
|
|
|
VinceSamios
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:11:30 PM |
|
1. 11 year old technology
2. 130nm chips will not mine at a profit within 5-8 months
3. 130nm chips coming online at the same time as 28nm chips from two other suppliers
4. 65nm chips due to be developed in 2014.... when 28nm chips are already on the market, as well as bulk 65nm chips
5. Not hashing until they can get their own hardware online (it took BFL 12+ months)
6. F*d up the IPO and pissed off potential investors before they even started....
remind me, why are people investing in this ipo?
I think BTC IPO's are a bubble... a massive massive bubble. The idea that people are prepared to buy this shit illustrates that fact completely.
someone wants cheap shares Hand on heart - this one is not for me. For the reasons above. |
|
|
|
grimholt
Member
Offline
Activity: 104
Merit: 10
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:12:08 PM |
|
hmm maybe because it cheap... easy to deliver and actually pretty reliable... but wtf do I know Vbs and myself has already asked TheSwede75 to address this several times, without getting any response (see my latest post). I have reached out to our development team and they will offer an in depth technical explanation behind Labcoins reasoning behind density choice. What I can tell you is that the choice of developing the first generation ASIC using 'old technology' is the far superior price point and manufacturing availability/time to market this provides. Labcoin is also as stated already far into the development process for a 65 nm chip for the next generation of the ASIC. Looking forward to the in-depth explanation. Could you also address the questions regarding the time frame? TIME FRAME:Is your 130nm chip set to being finished in Q4 2013? If so, do you plan on rolling out mining hardware from other manufacturers in the mean time (as ACTM is doing)? |
|
|
|
|
hammurabi
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:13:28 PM |
|
I think TheSwede75 is trying to do his best, but the whole thing is turning into a kind of a show now.
First there was a statement that before the trading there will be up to 16-24h time to make a bid. It was changed.
Then higher bid wins is going to change to yet unknown formula.
Then You state that You don't want to take any more money per share than 0.001 but taking circumstances You will do so.
So i think IPO should be delayed and solution should be worked out in a calm and steady pace instead of this rush.
|
BTC: 1Hpk4rWpP3gACJhXHn8VkeNp4usdQmfuVY
LTC: LM5p7X9dTsWj14G2VQeJKuntVUc6GsPnDp
|
|
|
|
Bitcycle
|
|
July 31, 2013, 03:13:55 PM |
|
I think I need to address this again, because of my vague words. :/
It's:
1. Top-Down
2. First-In
That's how it would work if the IPO was executed like any other sell order - It's unclear if there are special rules in place for IPOs or not, and different people are posting conflicting information. I mean, what happens if you have an early order at 0.001, and enough bids come out at or above 0.001001 to buy up all the shares? In that case would it be better to cancel your order and put in a new one at a higher price, or keep your bid in order to stay at the top of the queue? There is nothing special about the initial ask an issuer makes in their IPO. Thus the bids will get filled auction style, first by price, then at each price by whomever got their order in soonest. I understand there are questions around the fairness of this, but I don't have time to rewrite anything special. It seems to me that this method of filling the ask is in the best interest of the company filling the IPO anyway? Cheers. Quoting for reference |
|
|
|
|
|
